» 


4 


s 


William  W»  Morris 


Vim 


ence 


THE  LIBRARY  OF  THE 
UNIVERSITY  OF 
NORTH  CAROLINA 


ENDOWED  BY  THE 
DIALECTIC  AND  PHILANTHROPIC 
SOCIETIES 


BV811 
•  S9 

1856 


This  book  is  due  at  the  WALTER  R.  DAVIS  LIBRARY  on 
the  last  date  stamped  under  "Date  Due."  If  not  on  hold  it 
may  be  renewed  by  bringing  it  to  the  library. 


DATE  RET 
DUE  KtL 

DATE  RET 
DUE  RET" 

vKKJ"  

it  ft?  »0O 

  &JL 

• 

Ll~C-c>c> 

—  MAR 

,  9  2000 

IHKi  1  7 

2000 

SEP  3'0C 

DEC  0  j 

7000^ 

m  

SEP  6' 

Digitized  by  the  Internet-Archive 
in  2014 


* 


https://archive.org/details/baptismtreatiseoOOsumm_0 


c 


Ha 


BAPTISM: 


A  TREATISE 

ON  THE 

NATURE,  PERPETUITY,  SUBJECTS,  ADMINISTRATOR, 
MODE,  AND  USE 

OP  THE 

INITIATING  ORDINANCE 

OP  THE 


WITH  AN  APPENDIX, 

CONTAINING  STRICTURES  ON  DR.  HOWELi's  "  EVILS  OP  INFANT 
BAPTISM,"  ETC. 


BY 

THOMAS  0.  SUMMERS. 


Naalj&tlle,  %xm*\ 
PUBLISHED  BY  E.  STEVENSON  &  J.  E.  EVANS,  AGENTS, 

FOR  THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH,  SOUTH. 

1856. 


STEREOTYPED  AND  PRINTED  BY  A.  A.  STITT, 
SOUTHERN  METHODIST  PUBLISHING  HOUSE,   NASHVILLE,  TENN. 


TO  BISHOP  ANDREW. 


Reverend  and  dear  Sir: 

So  numerous  are  the  works  on  Baptism  at  the 
present  day — so  worthless  are  the  most  of  them — so 
humble  are  the  claims  of  the  author  of  the  following 
treatise,  that  he  has  not  been  without  some  unplea- 
sant apprehensions  in  regard  to  its  fate,  if  committed 
to  the  press.  He  has,  therefore,  concluded  to  adopt 
an  expedient,  not  unfrequently  resorted  to  in  similar 
cases :  that  is  to  say,  to  send  forth  his  unpretending 
little  book  under  the  protection  of  a  name,  far  wider 
known  and  more  esteemed  than  his  own.  When  it 
is  seen  that  the  patronage  of  one  of  the  Bishops  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  is  thus  far 
extended  to  the  work,  the  public  perhaps  may  con- 
sider it  not  altogether  unworthy  of  notice.  The 
author,  indeed,  has  other  reasons  for  this  inscription, 
but  they  are  of  such  a  complexion  as  to  justify  their 
omission  in  this  place,  as  considerations  of  personal 
esteem  and  the  like  need  not  be  detailed  in  the  front 
of  a  volume. 

Being  somewhat  acquainted  with  his  inclinations 
and  aversions,  you  may  wonder,  perhaps,  that  he 
should  write  a  work  on  Baptism.    He  has  but  little 

3 


4 


TO  BISHOP  ANDREW. 


taste  for  polemic  theology,  especially  when  "mint, 
and  anise,  and  cummin"  are  the  subjects  of  debate ; 
and  yet  he  is  plunging  into  a  controversy  which 
seems  to  involve  nothing  else,  having  apparently  but 
a  remote  relation  to  "the  weightier  matters  of  the 
law,  judgment,  mercy,  and  faith."  To  say  the  least, 
he  has  placed  himself  in  a  paradoxical  position ;  and 
a  word  or  two  in  regard  to  this  point  may  not  be 
uncalled  for  or  considered  in  bad  taste. 

The  question  may  be  asked,  Have  we  not  already 
works  enough  on  Baptism  ?  He  of  course  will  give 
a  negative  answer,  otherwise  the  following  treatise 
would  not  be  added  to  the  catalogue.  The  reasons 
which  have  influenced  him  in  the  premises  are  briefly 
these : — 

1.  He  has  been  earnestly  requested,  by  those 
whose  opinion  he  holds  in  high  esteem,  to  write  a 
work  on  Baptism. 

2.  For  several  years  he  has  been  collecting  ma- 
terials on  this  subject,  and  canvassing  it  in  its  various 
relations — at  first,  for  the  rectifying  or  confirming 
of  his  own  mind,  and  then  for  the  more  intelligent 
and  profitable  exercise  of  his  functions  as  a  minister 
of  Christ,  who  ought  6 6  to  know  the  certainty  of  those 
things  wherein"  he  has  "been  instructed"  himself, 
and  wherein  he  has  to  instruct  others.  The  result 
of  this  prolonged  investigation  is  an  approach  to 
"certainty,"  as  near  perhaps  as  can  be  admitted  in 
a  question  of  this  sort.  He  is  satisfied  with  the  ar- 
guments adduced  in  favor  of  the  views  which  he 
entertains  in  regard  to  the  Nature,  Perpetuity,  Sub- 


TO  BISHOP  ANDREW. 


5 


jects,  Administrator,  Mode,  and  Use  of  Baptism ;  and 
he  can  hardly  imagine  that  they  will  not  prove  equally 
satisfactory  to  any  one  else  who  will  give  them  a 
candid  and  careful  examination.  In  the  hope  and 
belief  that  some  inquiring  minds  of  this  character 
will  peruse  this  treatise,  he  has  complied  with  the 
importunity  of  his  friends  in  allowing  it  to  appear  in 
print. 

3.  Many  of  the  works  on  Baptism  which  teem 
from  the  press  are  utterly  worthless — the  most  of 
them  advocating  erroneous  principles,  sometimes, 
indeed,  affecting  the  fundamentals  of  Christianity. 
The  style  and  spirit  too,  in  not  a  few  instances,  are 
highly  objectionable — not  the  slightest  regard  being 
given  to  the  apostolic  rule  of  speaking  the  truth  in 
love.  The  spread  of  such  works  is  of  most  per- 
nicious tendency;  and  if  the  issue  of  the  present 
volume  will,  to  any  extent,  restrict  their  circulation, 
the  author  has  not  labored  in  vain. 

4.  Although  there  are  many  valuable  tracts  and 
treatises  on  the  Subjects  of  Baptism  and  also  on  the 
Mode,  yet,  so  far  as  the  author  is  aware,  there  is  no 
manual  in  circulation  which  discusses  all  the  matters 
embraced  in  the  following  treatise;  and  he  is  of 
opinion  that  there  are  points  involved  in  the  ques- 
tion of  the  Administrator  of  Baptism  of  no  small 
interest  to  Christians  in  general  and  to  ministers  in 
particular ;  and  the  Use  of  Baptism  ought  not  to  be 
considered  of  comparatively  small  importance ;  yet 
these  topics  are  scarcely  ever  noticed  in  the  popular 
works  on  Baptism,  and  in  none  of  them  are  they 


6 


TO  BISHOP  ANDREW. 


adequately  discussed.  The  present  work  is  the  re- 
sult of  an  humble  effort  to  supply  this  vacancy  in  our 
theological  literature. 

5.  In  most  of  the  works  on  Baptism  which  the 
author  has  noticed,  there  is  either  a  servile  copying 
of  what  others  have  said  before,  or  else  an  attempt 
at  originality  by  far-fetched  arguments  and  hyper 
critical  interpretations  of  Scripture,  which  not  un- 
frequently  jeopard  the  interests  they  are  designed  to 
defend.  The  author  has  endeavored  to  avoid  both 
these  extremes.  He  has  made  himself  familiar  with 
the  proofs  and  illustrations  of  those  who  are  entitled 
to  a  hearing,  and  he  has  passed  them  all  through  his 
own  mind,  subjecting  them  to  the  impress  of  his  own 
reason  and  judgment.  He  is  not  greatly  concerned 
to  know  to  what  extent  he  is  indebted  to  others  for 
the  conclusions  to  which  he  has  been  conducted,  or 
for  the  logical  processes  by  which  they  have  been 
reached.  In  a  work  like  this,  to  adduce  authorities 
for  every  position  advanced,  would  be  a  simple  ab- 
surdity. He  has,  indeed,  given  full  and  correct 
quotations — the  ipsissima  verba — in  every  instance 
in  which  the  circumstances  of  the  case  seem  to  re- 
quire that  this  should  be  done,  whether  the  pas- 
sages are  introduced  to  be  controverted  or  endorsed. 

6.  Some  works  on  Baptism,  in  many  respects 
valuable,  are  sadly  defective  on  the  score  of  method. 
To  this  point  the  author  has  paid  considerable  atten- 
tion, and  hopes  that  his  work  will  not  prove  unsatis- 
factory in  the  mode  of  its  arrangement.    A  glance 


TO  BISHOP  ANDREW. 


7 


at  the  Table  of  Contents  and  Index  will  show  that 
this  matter  has  not  been  disregarded. 

The  foregoing  reasons,  with  others  that  need  not 
be  stated,  justify  to  his  own  mind  the  publication  of 
this  treatise.  He  devoutly  prays  that  it  may  be 
the  means  of  satisfying  some  doubtful  and  inquiring 
mind — allaying  to  some  extent  the  fierceness  of  the 
baptismal  controversy — promoting  the  cause  of  truth, 
and  advancing  the  glory  of  the  ever-blessed  Trinity, 
to  whom  we  have  been  solemnly  consecrated  in  the 
holy  ordinance  of  Baptism. 

It  may  not  be  improper  to  observe  that  the  friendly 
relations  which  the  author  maintains  with  Christians 
who  dissent  from  the  views  set  forth  in  this  treatise 
respecting  the  Subjects  and  Mode  of  Baptism,  show 
that  he  does  not  consider  those  views  so  set  forth  in 
the  Scripture,  as  that  good  men  may  not  fail  to  find 
them  there.  But  while  he  recognizes,  in  the  courtesy 
of  Christian  intercourse,  the  title  which  they  have 
seen  proper  to  claim,  yet  he  hopes  they  will  take  no 
offense  at  a  variation  from  this  course  in  a  formal 
treatise  on  a  Christian  Institution.  Humbly  con- 
ceiving that  they  have  no  scriptural  charter  for  the 
monopoly  of  this  ordinance — believing,  indeed,  that 
they  are  not  so  properly  "Baptists"  as  those  whom 
they  cannot  style  even  "Pedobaptists"  but  by  a 
stretch  of  politeness  for  which  they  sometimes  apolo- 
gize— the  author  has  seen  proper  to  style  them 
Antipedobaptists,  when  speaking  of  them  in  refer- 
ence to  the  Subjects  of  Baptism — Immersionists,  in 
regard  to  the  Mode  of  Baptism — and  Anabaptists, 


8 


TO  BISHOP  ANDREW. 


in  respect  to  their  repetition  of  Baptism.  As  to  the 
title,  "Pedobaptists,"  he  does  not  affect  it  for  him- 
self and  those  who  symbolize  with  him  in  the  pre- 
mises, especially  as,  like  the  apostles,  they  baptize 
adults  as  well  as  children ;  and  so  far  as  this  ordi- 
nance is  concerned,  they  want  no  title  more  specific 
than  that  of  Baptist,  which  properly  belongs  to  no 
one  but  the  administrator  of  the  ordinance.  In  this 
acceptation  the  title  has  been  appropriated  to  the 
forerunner  of  Christ:  they,  therefore,  prefer  the 
name  which  the  disciples  received  at  Antioch,  de- 
rived from  our  only  Master  and  Lord,  the  latchet 
of  whose  shoes  the  Baptist  did  not  consider  himself 
worthy  to  unloose. 

The  author  of  this  treatise,  as  those  who  read  it 
will  perceive,  does  not  undervalue  the  ordinance  of 
Baptism;  nevertheless,  he  assigns  it  an  immeasura- 
bly lower  place  than  that  of  the  Baptism  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  of  which  it  is  the  expressive  symbol.  He 
feels  very  certain  that  his  venerated  friend,  whom  he 
has  presumed  to  address  in  the  present  style,  will 
unite  with  him  in  praying  that  the  church,  including 
Christians  of  every  name,  may  receive  a  more  copious 
baptism  of  the  Spirit;  and  that  the  time  may  soon 
come  when  the  blood  of  sprinkling  shall  be  applied 
to  the  conscience  and  heart  of  every  child  of  man. 

Instead  of  writing  a  brief  Dedication,  the  author 
finds  that  he  has  been  betrayed  into  an  Introduc- 
tion— so  much  so,  indeed,  as  to  supersede  the  ne- 
cessity of  writing  a  formal  one  for  a  volume  so 
unpretending  as  the  present.    Invoking,  therefore, 


TO  BISHOP  ANDREW. 


the  blessing  of  Heaven  on  the  publication,  and  be- 
speaking the  candor  of  the  reader  in  regard  to  its 
teachings,  and  his  generosity  in  respect  to  its  lite- 
rary merits,  he  will  add  nothing  more,  except  to  beg 
permission  to  write  himself, 

With  very  great  affection  and  esteem, 
Reverend  and  dear  Sir, 
Your  fellow-laborer  in  the  Gospel  of  Christ, 

The  Author. 

Charleston,  S.  C,  May  20,  1852. 


I* 


CONTENTS. 

* 


F 1GB 

Chap,  t  NATURE  OF  BAPTISM   13 

II.  PERPETUITY  OF  BAPTISM   16 

HL  SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM   21 

Sect.  I.  Believing  Adults   21 

n.  Infants   22 

1.  They  are  the  subjects  of  redeeming  grace   2Sa 

2.  They  are  embraced  in  the  Abrahamic  Covenant   23 

2L  Their  Church-membership  is  recognized  in  the  New 

Testament   27 

4.  They  were  baptized  by  the  Apostles   82 

5.  They  were  baptized  by  the  Fathers   34 

6.  They  have  been  baptized  in  every  succeeding  age   39 

III.  Objections  to  Infant  Baptism  answered   45 

1.  Infants  cannot  understand  the  meaning  of  Baptism  46 

2.  Infants  cannot  perform  the  conditions  of  Baptism...  46 

3.  Infants  cannot  discharge  the  obligations  of  Baptism  46 

4.  Infants  cannot  embrace  the  benefits  of  Baptism   47 

5.  Infants  can  be  saved  without  Baptism   47 

6.  There  is  no  Scriptural  command  to  baptize  Infants..  48 

7.  There  is  no  Scriptural  precedent  for  the  Baptism  of 

Infants   48 

8.  Infant  Baptism  is  the  occasion  of  numerous  evils ....  50 

IV.  ADMINISTRATOR  OF  BAPTISM   53 

Sect.  I.  Donatist,  Puritan,  and  Anabaptist  extremes   53 

II.  Patristic,  Romish,  and  Protestant  extremes   59 

HI.  Via  Media   64 

V.  MODE  OF  BAPTISM   78 

Sect.  I.  Presumptions  in  favor  of  Affusion  h#-   78 

II.  Proofs  of  Affusion   79 

HE.  Demonstrations  of  Affusion   88 

IV.  Objections  to  Affusion  answered   92 

1.  Baptismal  terms  imply  only  Immersion   92 

2.  Prepositions  used  with  baptismal  terms  imply  only 

Immersion   99 

3.  The  account  of  John's  Baptism  implies  only  Immer- 

sion ,  102 

4.  Allusions  to  burial  with  Christ  in  Baptism  imply 

only  Immersion  109 

6.  Immersion  was  practised  in  the  primitive  Church...  113 
6.  Immersion  alone  is  admitted  by  all  parties  to  be  valid  119 

11 


12 


CONTENTS. 


PAGJB 


Chap.  TL  USE  OF  BAPTISM  124 

Sect.  I.  Baptism  not  Regeneration,  nor  its  necessary  condition 

or  instrument  124 

1.  Baptismal  Regeneration,  as  held  by  Fathers,  Pa- 

pists, and  Protestants..  124 

2.  Baptismal  Regeneration  false,  absurd,  and  unscrip- 

tural  148 

II.  Three-fold  End  of  Baptism  153 

1.  Baptism  considered  as  a  Sign  154 

2.  Baptism  considered  as  a  Seal  155 

3.  Baptism  considered  as  a  Means  of  Grace  15{* 

1H.  Objections  answered  159 

1.  Church-membership  is  secured  by  an  act  subse- 

quent to  Baptism,  which  is  not  a  Church  Or- 
dinance  159 

2.  Church-membership  is  secured  by  an  arrange- 

ment antecedent  to  Baptism,  and  is  prerequi- 
site to  the  Ordinance  161 

IT.  Conclusion  *  169 

APPENDIX. 

Strictures  on  Dr.  Howell's  Ems  op  Infant  Baptism  175 

Classical  and  Scriptural  Use  op  Baptismal  Terms  220 

Illustrations  op  the  Primitive  Mode  op  Baptism  241 

GENERAL  INDEX  245 

INDEX  OF  SCRIPTURE  TEXTS  «...  261 


BAPTISM. 


CHAPTER  I 
NATURE  OF  BAPTISM, 

Baptism  is  an  ordinance  instituted  by  Christ,  consist* 
ing  in  the  application  of  water  by  a  Christian  minister^ 
to  suitable  persons,  for  their  initiation  into  the  visible 
church,  and  consecration  to  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghost. 

The  word  baptism,  like  almost  all  of  our  other  theolo- 
gical terms,  has  been  transferred  into  the  English  lan- 
guage, as  indeed  into  all  other  modern  tongues,  from  the 
Greek.  As  used  in  the  New  Testament,  it  properly  de- 
notes purification  by  water,  whether  the  subject  is  applied 
to  the  element,  or  the  element  to  the  subject.  When 
there  arose  a  question  between  some  of  John's  disciples 
and  the  Jews  about  purifying,  they  came  to  John  and 
proposed  it  to  him  for  solution.  The  question,  according 
to  their  statement,  had  reference  to  the  prerogative  of  ad- 
ministering baptism,  showing  plainly  in  what  acceptation 
they  employed  the  term. 

As  the  ordinance  of  purification,  it  does  not  effect  u  the 
putting  away  of  the  filth  of  the  flesh  f[  but  it  is  emblem- 
atical of  sanctification,  stipulates  its  production  as  a  duty, 
pledges  the  grace  through  which  alone  it  can  be  realized, 
introduces  to  its  agencies  and  instrumentalities,  and  thus 
ministers  to  its  accomplishment. 

It  is  therefore  federal  in  its  nature,  being,  as  it  were,  a 
seal  to  the  covenant  in  which  God  and  the  subject  of  the 

13 


14 


NATURE  OF  BAPTISM. 


ordinance  are  the  contracting  parties.  u  For  as  many  of 
you  as  have  been  baptized  into  Christ  have  put  on  Christ. 
And  if  ye  be  Christ's,  then  are  ye  Abraham's  seed,  and 
heirs  according  to  the  promise."  G-al.  iii.  27-29.  It 
thus  sustains  the  same  relations  to  the  Abrahamic  cove- 
nant which  circumcision  formerly  sustained.  And  whereas 
circumcision,  under  the  Mosaic  dispensation,  had  respect 
to  the  supplementary  privileges  and  obligations  of  that 
economy,  so  baptism  has  respect  to  all  the  promises  and 
precepts  of  the  Christian  dispensation,  which  is  antitypical 
of  the  Mosaic  and  complemental  of  the  Abrahamic. 

As  baptism  initiates  a  man  into  the  visible  church,  it  is 
a  kind  of  new  birth,  and  is  so  styled  by  our  Lord :  "  Ex- 
cept a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God."  We  enter  into  this 
world  by  natural  birth  :  so  by  a  new  birth  we  enter  into 
the  new  heavens  and  new  earth,  wherein  dwelleth  right- 
eousness. Externally,  symbolically,  we  are  born  again 
by  water,  as  baptism  brings  us  into  the  visible  kingdom 
of  God  :  internally,  morally,  we  are  born  again  by  the 
Holy  Ghost,  as  by  his  grace  we  are  brought  into  the  invi- 
sible kingdom,  the  kingdom  of  grace,  which  is  the  incho- 
ation  of  the  kingdom  of  glory. 

Baptism  is  therefore  a  symbol  of  u  the  renewing  of  the 
Holy  Ghost/'  with  which  it  is  associated  by  St.  Paul, 
who  accordingly  calls  it,  not  "  regeneration,"  but,  the 
"  washing,"  or  bath,  by  which  it  is  symbolized. 

It  is  not  the  agent  of  regeneration,  not  the  inseparable 
antecedent  of  the  new  birth  unto  righteousness.  A  man 
may  be  born  of  water,  like  Simon  the  sorcerer,  and  not  be 
born  of  the  Spirit;  or  he  may  be  born  of  the  Spirit,  like 
Cornelius,  without  being  born  of  water.  It  is  a  means 
of  grace,  and  therefore  of  regeneration,  only  as  it  ministers 
to  it  in  the  respects  already  noticed. 

It  is  essential  to  Christianity,  as  it  was  instituted  by  the 
Author  and  Finisher  of  our  faith. 

It  is  a  saving  ordinance,  as  is  every  thing  else  that  per- 
tains to  the  gospel  of  our  salvation. 

It  is  necessary  to  salvation,  as  no  one  can  be  saved  who 


NATURE  OF  BAPTISM. 


n 


neglects  a  known  duty ;  but  it  is  not  so  necessary  but  that  ? 
a  man  may  be  saved  without  it,  if  nothing  but  invincible 
ignorance  or  insuperable  obstacles  occasion  the  neglect. 

Its  advantages  accrue  from  a  comprehension  of  its  de- 
sign and  a  practical  recognition  of  the  interests  it  exhibit? 
and  involves.  It  is  therefore  constantly  associated  with 
the  spiritual  agencies  and  exercises  of  which  it  is  the  ex- 
ponent and  ally.  Thus,  in  addition  to  the  texts  already 
cited,  we  read :  u  Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations, 
baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son, 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost :  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things 
whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you"  Matt,  xxviii.  19, 20. 
"He  that  believeth,  and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved." 
Mark  xvi.  16.  u  Repent,  and  be  baptized  every  one  of 
you  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins, 
and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  Acts  iL 
38.  "  And  the  eunuch  said,  See,  here  is  water,  what  doth 
hinder  me  to  be  baptized  ?  And  Philip  said,  If  thou  be- 
lievest  with  all  thine  heart,  thou  mayest."  Acts  viii.  36,  37. 
"  Arise,  and  be  baptized,  and  wash  away  thy  sins,  calling 
on  the  name  of  the  Lord."  Acts  xxii.  16.  "  Baptism  doth 
also  now  save  us,  (not  the  putting  away  of  the  filth  of  the 
flesh,  but  the  answer  of  a,  good  conscience  before  God^)  by 
the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ."  1  Pet.  iii.  21. 

These  references  to  the  design  and  effect  of  baptism, 
in  connection  with  the  definition  we  have  given,  clearly 
enough  show  the  Nature  of  this  initiatory  and  symbolical 
ordinance.  It  is  marvellous  how  it  ever  could  be  mis- 
taken. 

The  discussion  of  other  points,  particularly  the  Use  of 
baptism,  will  more  fully  develop  its  Nature, 


16 


PERPETUITY  OF  BAPTISM 


CHAPTER  H. 
PERPETUITY  OF  BAPTISM. 

The  perpetual  obligation  of  this  institution  has  been 
gainsaid  by  some,  though  a  very  few :  this  point,  there- 
fore, deserves  notice,  but  a  very  brief  one. 

The  ordinance  of  baptism  was  instituted  by  the  Author 
and  Finisher  of  our  faith,  without  any  hint  of  its  tempo- 
rary obligation.  We  can  scarcely  suppose  that  he  would 
have  associated  baptism  with  other  parts  of  ministerial 
duty,  intending  the  latter  to  be  of  perpetual  force  and 
the  former  to  be  presently  laid  aside,  without  making  the 
discrimination ;  but  we  look  in  vain  for  the  slightest  in- 
timation of  the  kind.  Indeed,  there  ought  to  have  been 
not  merely  a  hint,  but  a  plain,  specific  instruction,  if  the 
ordinance  was  not  designed  to  be  perpetual.  The  precise 
period  when  it  should  be  laid  aside  ought  to  have  been 
designated.  It  must  have  been  foreseen  that  without  this 
limitation,  as  to  time,  the  ministers  of  the  church  would 
perpetuate  the  observance ;  and  yet  there  is  no  such  limita- 
tion.   The  inference  is  patent  and  unanswerable. 

As  the  Divine  Author  of  the  Christian  dispensation 
gave  no  hint  of  the  temporariness  of  this  institution,  when 
he  appointed  it,  so  he  never  repealed  it  at  any  subsequent 
period.  We  search  the  Acts  and  Epistles  of  the  apostles, 
in  vain,  to  find  an  abrogation  of  the  law  of  baptism.  And 
no  great  wonder  we  do  not  find  it,  for  the  same  authority 
which  imposes  an  obligation  is  required  for  the  repeal 
thereof ;  and  the  great  Legislator  did  not  see  fit  to  enact 
any  law  for  the  government  of  his  church,  except  in  his 
own  proper  person.  This  was  a  matter  too  weighty  to 
be  intrusted  even  to  the  inspired  apostles.  The  charter 
put  into  their  hands  by  the  ascending  Saviour  reads  thus  : 
"  Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them 
ia  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 


PERPETUITY  OF  BAPTPSM. 


17 


Holy  Ghost :  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  what- 
soever I  have  commanded  you."  Accordingly,  there  is 
not  a  dogma  or  a  precept  in  the  Acts  and  Epistles  that 
is  not  in  the  Gospels.  The  twelve  apostles  had  been 
thoroughly  indoctrinated  during  their  educational  course 
under  the  great  Teacher;  and  as  for  St.  Paul,  who  was 
a  supernumerary  in  the  sacred  college,  he  was  in  like 
manner  instructed  by  the  Saviour,  in  several  personal  in- 
terviews, both  on  earth  and  in  paradise.  He  says  him- 
self, "  I  certify  you,  brethren,  that  the  gospel  which  was 
preached  of  me  is  not  after  man.  For  I  neither  received 
it  of  man,  neither  was  I  taught  it,  but  by  the  revelation 
of  Jesus  Christ."  No  apostle  would  have  had  the  presump- 
tion to  originate  an  ordinance  for  the  church  of  Christ ; 
and,  by  parity,  no  apostle  would  have  made  the  sacrile- 
gious attempt  to  abrogate  an  institution  of  Divine  appoint- 
ment. 

It  is  in  vain  to  say  that  no  special  act  of  abrogation 
was  needed,  the  dictates  and  decisions  of  reason  being 
sufficient  to  justify  its  repeal.  Eeason  is  an  uncertain 
guide  and  an  unauthorized  legislator  in  religion.  Its  onlv 
province  is  to  enable  us  to  find  out  what  has  been  authori- 
tatively revealed.  It  is  not  competent  to  make  revela- 
tions itself. 

It  is  impertinent  to  urge  that  though  the  ordinance 
may  have  been  of  use  in  founding  the  New  Dispensation, 
it  subserves  no  valuable  purpose  now ;  and,  as  it  has  been 
perverted  to  superstitious  and  unholy  ends,  it  ought  to  be 
abolished. 

The  position  assumed  is  palpably  false.  If  one  man 
imagines  that  baptism  does  not  suit  the  genius  of  the 
Christian  religion,  being  a  weak  and  beggarly  element,  a 
carnal  ordinance,  incongruous  to  the  spiritual  nature  of 
the  kingdom  of  Christ,  it  is  perhaps  sufficient  to  say  that 
there  are  a  thousand  to  that  one  who  entertain  a  different 
opinion.  They  believe  that  Christianity  would  not  be 
suited  to  man,  as  a  complex  being,  if  it  had  not  positive 
institutions  as  well  as  dogmatic  and  ethical  principles. 
They  are  obviously  correct  in  their  belief.    The  senses 

2* 


18 


PERPETUITY  OF  BAPTISM. 


are  not  to  be  neglected  in  religion,  merely  because  there 
is  danger  of  assigning  them  too  great  prominence.  We 
must  not  let  them  usurp  authority  over  reason  and  reve- 
lation )  but  then  we  cannot  dispense  with  their  services. 
The  first  Christians  needed  them  in  matters  of  religion, 
and  we  need  them  too. 

The  action  in  baptism  is  emblematical ;  and  when  the 
ordinance  is  duly  administered,  it  is  impressive,  solemn, 
and  edifying.  The  ceremonial  application  of  water  to  the 
person  represents  in  a  lively  and  instructive  manner  the 
internal  application  of  Divine  grace  to  cleanse  the  soul 
from  the  impurities  of  sin.  The  water  strikingly  symbol- 
izes that  extraneous  influence — that  power  which  is  not 
inherent  in  our  nature,  for  we  cannot  bring  a  clean  thing 
out  of  an  unclean — that  efficacy  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  by 
which  the  conscience  is  purged  from  dead  works  to  serve 
the  living  God. 

Submitting  to  the  ordinance  by  our  own  choice,  or  that 
of  our  natural  and  moral  representatives  if  we  are  infants 
— for  baptism  is  never  to  be  administered  by  priestly 
coercion — we  declare  our  determination  to  lead  a  holy  life, 
symbolically  separating  ourselves  from  the  antichristian 
world,  assuming  the  obligations  and  claiming  the  privi- 
leges of  the  disciples  of  Christ.  Such  a  service  is  very 
far  from  being  an  empty  ceremony.  And  as  the  apostles 
so  frequently  challenged  the  obedience  of  Christians  by 
referring  to  their  baptism,  it  may  be  of  equal  service  to 
us,  calling  to  our  minds  the  responsibilities  we  have 
assumed,  stimulating  us  to  discharge  our  Christian  duties 
and  not  to  forfeit  the  privileges  they  entail.  We  always 
realize  this  advantage  whenever  we  seriously  revert  to 
our  baptism,  particularly  when  present  at  the  solemn 
administration  of  the  ordinance — an  argument,  by  the 
way,  for  its  public  celebration. 

In  view  of  these  considerations,  it  is  not  to  be  wondered 
at  that  the  church  in  every  age  has  perpetuated  this 
institution ;  and  as  it  will  ever  need  its  advantages,  so  we 
are  very  sure  it  will  perpetuate  the  ordinance  to  the 
of  time. 


PERPETUITY  OF  BAPTISM. 


19 


As  extended  argument  on  this  subject  would  be  utterly 
superfluous,  we  shall  add  nothing  to  the  foregoing,  except 
the  following  ingenious  observations  of  Bp.  Warburton. 
The  learned  author  of  The  Divine  Legation  remarks, 
Booh  vi. ,  sec.    ; — 

"  There  is  a  sect,  and  that  no  inconsiderable  one, 
which,  being  essentially  founded  in  enthusiasm,  hath, 
amongst  other  of  its  strange  freaks,  thrown  out  the  insti- 
tution of  water  baptism  from  its  scheme  of  Christianity. 
It  is  very  likely  that  the  illiterate  founder,  while  rapt  in 
his  fanatic  visions,  did  not  reflect  that  of  all  the  institu- 
tions of  our  holy  religion,  this  of  water  baptism  was  least 
proper  to  be  called  in  question,  being  most  invincibly 
established  by  the  practice  both  of  Paul  and  Peter.  This 
latter,  finding  that  the  household  of  Cornelius  the  Gentile 
had  received  the  Holy  Ghost,  regarded  it  as  a  certain 
direction  for  him  to  admit  them  into  the  church  of  Christ, 
which  he  did  by  the  initiatory  rightof  water  baptism.  Acts 
x.  47.  Paul,  in  his  travels  through  the  Lesser  Asia, 
finding  some  of  the  Jewish  converts,  who  had  never  heard 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and,  on  inquiry,  understanding  they 
had  been  only  baptized  by  water  unto  John's  baptism, 
thought  fit  to  baptize  them  with  water  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord  J esus,  that  is,  to  admit  them  into  the  church ;  and 
then  laying  his  hands  upon  them,  the  Holy  Ghost  came 
upon  them,  and  they  spake  with  tongues  and  prophesied. 
Acts  xix.  In  spite  of  these  two  memorable  transactions, 
the  Quakers  have  notwithstanding  rejected  water  baptism. 
What  is  the  pretence?  ' Water  baptism/  it  seems,  'is 
John's  baptism,  and  only  a  type  of  baptism  by  the  Holy 
Ghost  or  by  fire  :  so  that  when  this  last  came  in  use,  the 
former  ceased  and  was  abolished/  Yet  in  the  two  his- 
tories given  above,  both  these  fancies  are  reproved,  and 
in  such  a  manner  as  if  the  stories  had  been  recorded  for 
no  other  purpose ;  for  in  the  adventure  of  Paul,  the  water 
baptism  of  J  esus  is  expressly  distinguished  from  the  water 
baptism  of  John ;  and  in  that  of  Peter,  it  appears  that 
water  baptism  was  necessary  for  admittance  into  the 
thurch  of  Christ,  even  after  the  ministration  of  baptism 


20 


PERPETUITY  OF  BAPTISM. 


by  fire,  or  the  communicated  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
It  is  further  observable,  that  these  two  heads  of  the  mis- 
sion to  the  two  great  divisions  of  mankind,  the  Jews  and 
G  entiles,  here  acted  in  one  another's  province  :  Peter,  the 
apostle  of  the  Jews,  administering  baptism  to  the  Gentile 
household  of  Cornelius,  and  Paul,  the  apostle  of  the  Gen- 
tiles, administering  the  same  rite  to  the  Jewish  converts. 
And  why  was  this  crossing  of  hands,  but  to  obviate  that 
silly  evasion  that  water  baptism  was  only  partial  or  tern 
porary  V 


SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM. 


21 


CHAPTEK  III. 
SUBJECTS   OF  BAPTISM. 
SECTION  I. — BELIEVING  ADULTS. 

The  subjects  of  baptism  are  of  two  classes.  The  first 
class  comprehends  all  persons  of  mature  years,  who  make 
a  credible  profession  of  repentance  toward  God  and  faith 
toward  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

It  were  absurd  and  sacrilegious  to  extend  the  rite  to 
any  who  are  manifestly  impenitent  and  unbelieving. 
"  Repent,  and  be  baptized,"  says  Peter.  "  And  the  eu- 
nuch said,  See,  here  is  water :  what  doth  hinder  me  to 
be  baptized  ?  And  Philip  said,  If  thou  believest  with  all 
thine  heart,  thou  mayest.  And  he  answered  and  said,  I 
believe  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God."  The  pagan 
must  renounce  his  heathenism — the  Hebrew,  his  Judaism 
— the  sinner,  his  sins,  before  he  is  prepared  to  pledge  his 
fealty  to  the  King  of  Zion ;  and  baptism  is  itself  a  pro- 
fession of  faith  in  Christ.  It  is  an  act  of  consecration  to 
the  Triune  God.  It  is  an  assumption  of  all  the  obliga- 
tions of  Christianity ;  and  no  man  is  qualified  to  take  the 
vows  of  Christ's  religion  upon  him  until  he  is  persuaded 
of  its  Divine  original. 

We  do  not  mean  to  say  that  no  one  is  eligible  to  bap- 
tism who  has  not  an  assurance  of  the  pardon  of  his  sin 
and  the  regeneration  of  his  nature,  through  faith  in  Christ 
and  by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Far  from  it.  Of 
course,  these  who  enjoy  the  witness  of  adoption  are  proper 
candidates  for  the  ordinance ;  but  so  also  are  all  those 
who  do  not  enjoy  it,  yet  are  desirous  of  attainiug  it  and 
are  seeking  its  possession.  Indeed,  baptism  is  admirably 
suited  to  their  case.  It  symbolizes  the  grace  which  they 
seek,  and  thus  assists  them  in  their  efforts  to  acquire  it : 
Khe  ordinance  thus  proves  a  means  whereby  the  penitent 


22 


SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM. 


subject  receives  the  inward  and  invisible  grace  which  it  is 
designed  to  represent.  Thus,  while  Cornelius  and  his 
friends  first  obtain  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  then 
receive  the  ordinance  which  represents  it,  the  thousands 
of  penitents  at  Pentecost  are  exhorted  by  Peter  to  receive 
the  ordinance  in  connection  with  repentance,  in  order  to 
obtain  the  spiritual  benefit :  "  Repent,  and  be  baptized, 
every  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the 
remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost." 

SECTION  It. — INFANTS. 

The  second  class  of  baptismal  subjects  comprehends  all 
young  children  that  are  sincerely  and  voluntarily  pre- 
sented for  the  ordinance. 

That  infants  are  proper  subjects  of  baptism  is  demon- 
strated by  the  following  considerations : — 

1.  They  are  all  the  subjects  of  redeeming  grace,  and 
they  do  not  place  any  bar  to  the  blood-bought  privileges 
of  the  gospel  to  exclude  themselves  from  participation  in 
them. 

They  are  not  baptized  because  their  parents  are  be- 
lievers in  Christ.  Their  right  to  the  ordinance  is  of  a 
higher  investiture.  They  claim  by  a  nobler  entail. 
Dying  in  infancy,  they  enter  heaven,  not  on  the  ground 
of  their  Christian  descent — the  piety  of  their  parents — 
but  because  of  their  personal  connection  with  the  Second 
Adam,  by  whose  righteousness  the  free  gift  is  come  upon 
them  unto  justification  of  life.  Upon  the  very  same 
basis  are  they  admitted  to  membership  in  the  kingdom 
of  grace  and  to  baptism,  as  the  rite  of  initiation  into  the 
church  of  God.  If  there  be  any  for  whom  Christ  did 
not  die — any  for  whom  he  did  not  purchase  the  sanctify- 
ing grace  of  the  Holy  Ghost — any  whom  he  designed  and 
decreed  never  to  save — such  are  obviously  ineligible  to 
baptism,  which  is  the  exponent  of  those  great  benefits 
which  flow  from  the  redemption  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus. 
But  if  he  tasted  death  for  every  man — if  the  free  gift  has 


INFANTS. 


23 


come  upon  all  who  are  involved  in  the  condemnation  of 
the  pristine  offense — there  can  be  no  reason  to  justify  the 
exclusion  of  any  from  the  sign  and  seal  of  the  Dhine 
mercy,  except  such  as  exclude  themselves  by  their  obsti- 
nate impenitency — and  infants  are  not  of  that  number. 

2.  They  are  specifically  embraced  in  the  gospel  cove- 
nant. 

When  that  covenant  was  made  with  Abraham,  his 
children  were  brought  under  its  provisions,  and  the  same 
seal  that  was  administered  to  him  was  administered  also 
to  them — including  both  those  that  were  born  in  his 
house  and  those  that  were  bought  with  his  money.  They 
were  all  alike  circumcised  in  token  of  their  common  in- 
terest in  that  covenant  of  which  circumcision  was  the  ap- 
pointed symbol.  That  covenant  is  still  in  force.  "Know 
ye  therefore/'  says  the  apostle,  a  that  they  which  are  of 
faith,  the  same  are  the  children  of  Abraham.  And  the 
Scripture,  foreseeing  that  God  would  justify  the  heathen 
through  faith,  preached  before  the  gospel  unto  Abraham, 
saying,  In  thee  shall  all  ^nations  be  blessed.  So  then  they 
which  be  of  faith  are  blessed  with  faithful  Abraham." 
Gal.  iii.  To  say,  therefore,  that  the  Abrahamic  covenant 
was  confined  exclusively  to  national  and  temporal  privi- 
leges and  obligations,  has  the  singular  infelicity  of  con- 
tradicting the  apostle. 

Besides,  what  national  and  temporal  privileges  and 
obligations  were  confirmed  to  Ishmael  and  his  posterity 
by  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  of  which  they  received  the 
sign  and  seal  ?  Did  they,  or  was  it  intended  that  they 
should,  receive  any  inheritance  in  the  promised  land? 
Were  they  brought  thereby  under  the  bond  of  the  Mosaic 
covenant  ?  The  Israelites  were ;  but  it  must  be  remem- 
bered that  "  circumcision  is  not  of  Moses,  but  of  the 
fathers."  It  signed  and  sealed  a  covenant  which  was 
made  hundreds  of  years  before  the  Jewish  ceremonial  law 
was  given.  "  And  this  I  say,"  observes  the  apostle, 
"  that  the  covenant  that  was  confirmed  before  of  God  in 
Christ,  the  law  which  was  four  hundred  and  thirty  years 
after  cannot  disannul,  that  it  should  make  the  promise  of 


24 


SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM. 


none  effect.  For  if  the  inheritance  be  of  the  law,  it  is 
no  more  of  promise  ;  but  Glod  gave  it  to  Abraham  by- 
promise.  "  Can  language  be  more  explicit,  more  deter- 
minate than  this?  Does  not  St.  Paul  tell  us  plainly  that 
the  Abrahamic  covenant  is  substantially  and  essentially 
identical  with  the  Christian  covenant?  And  if  children 
were  embraced  in  the  provisions  of  the  former,  what  but 
a  Divine  interdict  can  exclude  them  from  the  provisions 
of  the  latter?  And  no  such  interdict  has  ever  been  given. 
If,  therefore,  the  children  of  the  covenant  were  admitted 
to  its  symbolical  rite  under  the  old  dispensation,  why 
may  they  not  be  admitted  under  the  new  ?  Are  the  pro- 
visions of  the  latter  less  liberal,  less  extensive  than  those 
of  the  former? 

We  do  not  know  how  any  unprejudiced  person  can 
read  the  Scriptures  without  seeing  that  the  church  of 
G-od  is  essentially  one  and  the  same  under  every  dispen- 
sation. 

The  term  church,  Bxx^ala,  in  the  New  Testament,  cor- 
responds with  congregation,  hahal,  in  the  Old  •  and  the 
latter  is  frequently  so  rendered  in  the  Septuagint,  which 
sometimes  interchanges  it  with  synagogue,  a  word  of  the 
same  import.  St.  Stephen,  accordingly,  speaking  of 
Moses,  says,  "This  is  he  that  was  in  the  church  in  the  wil- 
derness," (Acts  vii.  45) — not  in  a  promiscuous  assembly, 
as  the  word  txxx^la,  sometimes  denotes,  but  a  regular 
ecclesiastical  organization,  called  by  St.  Paul  u  a  house/' 
in  which  Moses  acted  as  a  servant,  and  afterward  Christ 
as  "a  Son,"  "whose  house/'  says  the  apostle,  "are  we" 
Heb.  iii.    Compare  Ps.  xxii.  12,  lxx.,  and  Heb.  ii.  12. 

This  church  is  often  spoken  of  under  the  notion  of  a 
kingdom — "the  kingdom  of  God,"  or,  as  Matthew  fre- 
quently has  it,  "  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  Matt.  xx. 
1-16,  xxii.  1-14.  This  church,  or  kingdom,  our  Lord  told 
the  Jews  should  be  taken  from  them,  and  given  to  a  na- 
tion bringing  forth  the  fruits  thereof  Matt.  xxi.  43.  Com- 
pare Matt.  viii.  11,  12,  where  the  Jews  are  styled  "the 
children  of  the  kingdom,"  and,  because  of  their  disobedi- 
ence, threatened  with  a  fearful  expulsion.    They  were 


INFANTS. 


25 

-S 


in  possession  of  the  privileges  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  as 
it  existed  in  its  introductory  state,  and  they  had  a  pre- 
emption right  to  the  privileges  of  that  kingdom,  in  its 
perfected  state ;  in  which  sense  it  was  said  by  John  the 
Baptist  and  by  Christ  to  be  nigh  at  hand.  It  was  there- 
fore offered  first  to  them  by  our  Lord  himself  and  by  his 
ipostles,  as  Paul  and  Barnabas  said  to  the  Jews  :  "  It  was 
accessary  that  the  word  of  God  should  first  have  been 
spoken  to  you;  but  seeing  ye  put  it  from  you,  and  judge 
yourselves  unworthy  of  everlasting  life,  lo,  we  turn  to 
the  Gentiles/'  Acts  xiii.  46.  Thus  was  the  prediction  of 
Christ  verified. 

The  church  is  compared  by  St.  Paul  to  an  olive-tree, 
which,  planted  by  God  in  patriarchal  times,  continued  to 
grow  throughout  the  period  of  the  J ewish  dispensation ; 
but  some  of  the  natural  branches,  being  unfruitful,  were 
broken  off,  and  the  branches  of  a  wild  olive-tree  were, 
"  contrary  to  nature/'  grafted  in  their  place,  and  were 
thus  made  to  "  partake  of  the  root  and  fatness  of  the 
olive-tree."  Provision  is^however  made,  on  a  prescribed 
contingency,  for  the  u  natural  branches"  to  u  be  grafted 
into  their  own  olive-tree/'  "  for  God  is  able  to  graft  them 
in  again."  Bom.  xi.  Compare  Jer.  xi.  16.  If  this  does 
not  establish  the  essential  identity  of  the  church  under 
the  different  dispensations — no  matter  to  what  circumstan- 
tial changes  it  may  have  been  subjected — it  is  not  possible 
to  establish  any  point,  by  any  reasoning,  illustration,  or 
authority.  Indeed,  it  does  it  so  fully,  so  forcibly,  so  obvi- 
ously as  to  forestall  all  objections  and  to  preclude  all  argu- 
ment 

This  great  truth  pervades  the  New  Testament,  particu- 
larly the  Pauline  epistles,  being  frequently  brought  to 
view  in  an  incidental,  matter-of-course  manner,  and  not 
as  a  point  concerning  which  there  might  be  any  contro- 
versy. Accordingly,  we  know  of  no  controversy  on  this 
subject,  until  it  was  superinduced  by  the  emergencies  of 
antipedobaptist  divines. 

That  baptism  is  the  ordinance  of  initiation  inr,o  the 
church,  and  the  sign  and  seal  of  the  covenant  now,  cir- 
2 


26 


SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM. 


cumcision  was  formerly,  is  evident.  Thus  St.  Paul,  in 
connection  with  the  passages  we  have  cited  from  his  epistle 
to  the  Galatians,  uses  this  language  :  u  As  many  of  you 
as  have  been  baptized  into  Christ,  have  put  on  Christ. 
There  is  neither  Jew  nor  Greek,  there  is  neither  bond  nor 
free,  there  is  neither  male  nor  female;  but  ye  are  all  one 
in  Christ  Jesus.  And  if  ye  be  Christ's,  then  are  ye  Abra- 
ham's seed,  and  heirs  according  to  the  promise/'  And 
so  also  in  another  place  :  u  In  whom  also  ye  are  circum- 
cised with  the  circumcision  made  without  hands,  in  put- 
ting off  the  body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh,  by  the  circumci- 
sion of  Christ :  buried  with  him  in  baptism/'  Col.  ii. 
11,  12. 

Alluding  to  this  text,  Justin  Martyr  says,  {( We  have 
not  received  that  circumcision  according  to  the  flesh,  but 
that  circumcision  which  is  spiritual  y  and,  moreover,  for 
indeed  we  were  sinners,  we  have  received  this,  circumci- 
sion in  baptism,  for  the  purpose  of  God's  mercy ;  and  it 
is  enjoined  on  all  to  receive  it  in  like  fanner.'' 

Fidus  hesitated  to  baptize  children  before  the  eighth 
day  after  their  birth,  the  period  at  which  circumcision  was 
administered.  He  wrote  to  Cyprian  for  his  opinion,  and 
that  father  gave  the  judgment  of  sixty-six  bishops  in 
council,  that  infants  might  be  baptized  before  the  eighth 
day.  This  question  never  could  have  been  raised  had 
they  not  understood  that  baptism  has  taken  the  place  of 
circumcision. 

Chrysostom  says  emphatically,  "  There  was  pain  and 
trouble  in  the  practice  of  Jewish  circumcision;  but  our 
circumcision,  I  mean  the  grace  of  baptism,  gives  cure 
without  pain ;  and  this  for  infants  as  well  as  men/' 

Basil,  in  allusion  to  St.  Paul's  language,  says  "Dost 
thou  put  off  the  circumcision  made  without  hands,,  in  put- 
ting off  the  flesh,  which  is  done  in  baptism,  when  thou 
nearest  our  Lord  say,  i  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water 
and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
God'  ?" 

As  external  circumcision  symbolizes  the  "  circumcision 
of  the  heart,  in  the  spirit,"  so  baptism  symbolizes  the  same 


INFANTS. 


27 


great  act,  the  moral  purification  of  the  soul.  Baptism, 
being  a  less  rigorous  rite  than  circumcision,  is  more  con- 
genial to  the  Christian  economy  than  the  latter,  which  waft 
not  inappropriate  to  the  earlier  and  less  benign  dispensa- 
tions. Nevertheless,  as  it  is  of  the  same  mystical  import, 
it  signs  and  seals  the  same  promise  of  mercy  and  pledge 
of  obedience.  And  as  that  promise  extends  to  our  chil- 
dren as  well  as  to  us,  it  is  our  duty  to  do  all  in  our  power 
to  make  them  parties  to  the  covenant,  as  did  also  our  fa- 
ther Abraham.  "  For  the  promise/'  says  Peter,  "  is  unto 
you  and  to  your  children/'  As  God  has  not  excluded  fchem 
from  the  covenant,  it  seems  a  daring  act  of  presumption 
in  us  to  exclude  them  from  the  sign  by  which  it  is  set 
forth  and  the  seal  by  which  it  is  ratified. 

3.  Tfye  membership  of  children  in  the  Christian  church 
is  formally  recognized  in  the  New  Testament. 

u  They  brought  young  children  to  Christ,  that  he  should 
touch  them  ;  and  his  disciples  rebuked  those  that  brought 
them.  And  when  Jesus  saw  it,  he  was  much  displeased, 
and  said  unto  them,  Suffer  the  little  children  to  come 
unto  me,  and  forbid  them  not,  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom 
of  God.  Verily,  I  say  unto  you,  whosoever  shall  not  re- 
ceive the  kingdom  of  God  as  a  little  child,  he  shall  not 
enter  therein.  And  he  took  them  up  in  his  arms,  put  his 
hands  upon  them,  and  blessed  them/'  Mark  x.  13-16. 

Let  it  be  observed  that  the  little  children,  *<x  7tatSta,  of 
Matthew  and  Mark,  are  styled  t&  (Spi^,  in  Luke,  (xviii. 
15,)  and  the  term  j3pc'$o$  means  an  infant,  a  babe,  or  such- 
ling.  It  is  properly  used  of  children  not  weaned.  The 
Greek  authorities  say  that  the  period  of  lactation  extend- 
ed to  four  years — among  the  Jews,  it  extended  to  three 
years  :  during  this  time  the  child  was  called  by  this  name, 
brephos. 

The  children  that  were  brought  to  Christ  must  have 
been  very  young,  as  he  took  them  up  in  his  arms,  put  his 
hands  upon  them,  and  blessed  them.  It  must  be  a  press- 
ing emergency  that  makes  adults  of  these  infants.  But, 
apart  from  all  hypercritical  analysis  or  torturing  of  the 
text,  can  any  unprejudiced  man  read  this  passage,  and  yet 


m 


28  SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM. 


believe  that  Christ  intended  to  exclude  children  from  meni« 
bership  in  his  church  ?  Those  to  whom  he  spoke  knew 
that  children  were  members  of  the  Jewish  church,  and 
that  millions  of  infant  souls  have  been  admitted  into  the 
kingdom  of  God  above ;  and  could  they  imagine  that  the 
Saviour  would  ostracize  these  little  ones  from  the  Chris- 
tian church,  the  kingdom  of  God  upon  earth  ?  Even  if 
he  meant  to  say,  Let  the  children  come,  for  persons  like 
them  are  to  be  members  of  my  church — this  does  not  ex- 
clude the  little  ones  themselves  :  it  rather  includes  them, 
especially  as  it  is  assigned  as  a  reason  why  they  should 
not  be  prevented  from  being  brought  to  him  to  receive 
his  blessing.  But  if  this  establishes  their  eligibility  to 
membership  in  the  church,  it  confirms,  by  necessary  se- 
quence, their  claim  to  baptism,  through  which  alone  they 
can  be  admitted  to  the  visible  kingdom  of  God. 

To  the  same  effect  is  the  language  of  St.  Paul :  "  For 
the  unbelieving  husband  is  sanctified  by,  or  to  the  wife, 
and  the  unbelieving  wife  is  sanctified  by,  or  to  the  hus- 
band :  else  were  your  children  unclean  ;  but  now  are  they 
holy."  1  Cor.  vii.  14. 

This  cannot  mean  inherently  righteous,  for  none  are 
holy  in  this  sense  until  they  are  born  again. 

Nor  does  it  mean  legitimate,  as  Dr.  Gill,  and  some 
others,  including  Albert  Barnes,  affirm;  for  this  is  no 
meaning  of  the  word.  It  is  used  some  five  hundred  times 
in  the  New  Testament,  and  always  in  the  sense  of  sancti- 
fication — reputed,  relative,  or  real.  Besides,  the  matter  in 
question  had  nothing  to  do  with  legitimate  and  illegiti- 
mate unions ;  and  of  course  the  legitimacy  or  illegitimacy 
of  their  offspring  has  no  place  in  the  argument. 

Furthermore,  the  word  cannot  mean  persons  with  whom 
Christians  may  have  familiar  intercourse,  according  to  the 
still  more  novel  theory  of  Dr.  Dagg — who,  by  the  way, 
manifests  no  small  ingenuity  in  its  construction  and  learn- 
ing in  its  defense.  He  supposes  the  children  in  question 
were  the  children  of  all  the  Christians  in  the  Corinthian 
church — as  if  there  were  any  parallel  between  the  case 
of  believing  parents  living  with  their  children  and  that  of 


INFANTS. 


29 


a  believing  husband  living  with  an  unbelieving  wife  or  a 
believing  wife  with  an  unbelieving  husband.  Against  the 
latter  there  had  been  a  positive  law  of  Divine  enactment : 
against  the  former  there  never  had  been  any  law,  human 
or  divine.  No  hypercritical  analysis  of  the  text,  or  cor- 
rection of  the  translation,  can  make  it  appear  that  because 
it  is  lawful  for  believing  parents  to  live  with  their  children 
it  is  lawful  for  a  believing  husband  or  wife  to  live  with 
an  unbelieving  consort.  What  curious  logic  !  We  ven- 
ture to  say,  neither  Jewish  nor  Gentile  believers  would 
be  satisfied  with  the  lawfulness  of  living  with  unbelieving 
husbands  or  wives,  merely  because  Christian  parents 
were  not  obliged  to  turn  their  children  out  of  doors  ! 

We  do  not  think  Dr.  Dagg's  philological  criticisms 
give  much  support  to  his  cause.  As  to  the  change  of 
address  from  the  third  person  to  the  second — "  your 
children" — it  is  enough  to  say,  that  transitions  of  this 
character  are  common  in  the  Scriptures,  and  this  chapter 
abounds  with  them.  The  same  parties  are  spoken  of 
and  spoken  to,  interchangeably,  a  dozen  times  in  a  para- 
graph. In  regard  to  the  subjunctive  rendering  of  the 
indicative,  Ic?W,  "  were  unclean,"  grammarians  tell  us  that 
the  indicative  frequently  has  a  subjunctive  force,  particu- 
larly in  Hellenistic  Greek,  in  imitation  of  the  Hebrew, 
which  has  no  subjunctive  form — and  the  sense  requires  it 
in  the  present  case.*  Our  argument,  however,  has  not 
much  concern  with  these  hair-splitting  niceties. 

With  respect  to  the  alleged  identity  of  the  holiness 
predicated  of  the  unbelieving  consort  and  that  of  the 
children,  as  being  fatal  to  the  common  interpretation  of 
this  passage,  it  may  suffice  to  say,  that  there  is  an  iden- 
tity, but  there  is  also  a  diversity.  There  are  in  fact  three 
kinds  of  holiness  involved  in  the  premises,  corresponding 
to  the  three  parties  involved :  the  first  is  a  real  holiness, 


*  Accordingly,  the  Vulgate  reads  :  "  alioquin  filii  vestri  immundi  e*- 
tent and  Tertullian :  "  ceterum  immundi  nascerentur."  Ds  Animay 
c.  xxxix.  Compare  1  Cor.  iv.  6;  xv.  12,  35,  50;  Gal.  iv.  17;  and  see 
Macknight's  Essays,  iv.  9. 


30 


SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM. 


appertaining  to  the  believing  husband  or  wife — the  second 
is  a  relative  holiness,  appertaining  to  the  children,  in  view 
of  their  baptism — and  the  third  is  a  reputed  holiness,  ap- 
pertaining to  the  unbelieving  husband  or  wife,  in  view  of 
the  relation  sustained  to  a  believing  consort.  A  family 
thus  constituted  would  be  considered  a  Christian  family, 
whereas  in  a  parallel  case  among  the  Jews,  the  family 
would  not  be  considered  a  Jewish  family,  but  the  chil- 
dren would  remain  heathens  like  the  heathen  parent,  not 
being  admitted  to  circumcision  until  the  latter  became  a 
proselyte,  or  until  they  became  old  enough  to  make  a 
formal  renunciation  of  heathenism  for  themselves.  Such 
mongrel  matrimonial  alliances  were  not  tolerated  by  the 
Jewish  law,  and  they  were  accordingly  dissolved  by  Ezra 
and  others.  But  Christianity  is  more  liberal  in  its  pro- 
visions. While,  on  the  ground  of  expediency,  it  forbids 
believers  to  be  "  unequally  yoked  together  with  unbeliev- 
ers/' yet  in  cases  where  such  unions  subsist — in  conse- 
quence of  the  conversion  of  one  of  the  parties — it  does 
not  exclude  their  children  from  its  pale.  Instead  of 
dealing  with  them  and  their  Christian  parent  as  heathens, 
because  of  the  heathenism  of  the  unbelieving  parent,  it 
embraces  the  former  in  its  fold  as  cordially  as  if  the  latter 
were  also  a  Christian. 

The  term  Ao?y,  as  used  of  such  children,  does  not  there- 
fore imply  that  they  were  morally  righteous,  or  lawfully 
begotten,  or  fit  for  parental  fellowship;  but  that  they 
were  ceremonially  clean  or  pure.  The  word  is  always 
used  in  the  Septuagint  in  this  sense,  as  the  rendering  of 
the  Hebrew  kadosh. 

The  argument  is  briefly  this : — If  the  children  of  a 
Christian  parent,  the  husband  or  wife  of  a  heathen,  be 
permitted  to  take  rank  with  the  saints,  ayta,  that  is, 
Christians,  or  members  of  the  church — as  the  word  im- 
ports in  the  New  Testament — the  conjugal  relation  has 
been  sanctified  to  a  Christian  husband  or  wife,  so  circum- 
stanced, and  must  not  be  dissolved.  This,  as  the  context 
shows,  was  the  point  in  dispute  in  the  Corinthian  church; 
but  it  could  not  have  been  settled  by  such  an  argument 


INFANTS. 


31 


as  this,  had  not  the  church-membership  of  children  been 
an  admitted  fact. 

We  have  not  thought  it  necessary  to  cite  authorities  in 
support  of  this  construction  of  the  passage,  as  there  is 
scarcely  a  critic — excepting,  of  course,  the  antipedobap- 
tists,  who  have  reason  enough  to  consider  it,  as  they  evi- 
dently do,  a  crux  crtticorum — who  does  not  think  that  it 
refers  to  the  baptismal  consecration  of  children.  So  Ter- 
tullian,  the  oldest  writer  on  the  subject,  believed;  and 
how  could  he  believe  otherwise,  when  he  knew  that  the 
term  holy  is  never  applied  in  the  New  Testament  to  any 
person  not  a  member  of  the  church  of  Christ?* 

The  apostle  evidently  considers  children  members  of  the 
church,  and  gives  them  instruction  accordingly.  "  Chil- 
dren, obey  your  parents  in  the  Lord ;  for  this  is  right/' 
Eph.  vi.  1;  Col.  iii.  20.  Here  the  natural  duty  of  filial 
obedience  rises  up  into  the  importance  of  a  Christian 
obligation  :  the  phrase,  in  the  Lord,  implying  a  recog- 
nition of  Divine  authority.  This  epistle  is  directed  to  the 
church  at  Ephesus,  and  in  closing  it,  according  to  his 
manner,  the  apostle  gives  instructions  of  a  practical  cha- 
racter to  the  members  of  the  church.    Among  them  were 


*  After  describing  the  idolatrous  rites  by  which  the  Romans  conse- 
crated their  children  to  their  deities,  Tertullian  says,  "  Hine  enim  et 
apostolus  ex  sanetificato  alterutro  sexu  sanetos  proereari  ait,  tarn  ex 
eeminis prozrogativa,  quam  ex  institutionis  disciplina.  Ceterum,  inquit, 
immundi  nascerentur,  quasi  designatos  tamen  sanctitati,  ac  per  hoc 
etiam  saluti,  intelligi  volens  Jidelium  jilios." — "  Hence,  the  apostle 
says,  either  parent  being  sanctified,  the  offspring  are  holy,  as  well  by 
the  privilege  of  descent  as  by  the  discipline  of  education.  Otherwise, 
he  says,  they  were  born  unclean,  yet  they  are,  so  to  speak,  appointed 
to  holiness,  and  by  that  also  to  be  saved."  This  holiness  is  baptismal, 
hence  he  adds,  "unless  any  one  be  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit  he 
cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God — id  est,  non  erit  sanctus,  that 
is,  he  cannot  be  holy."  On  which  words  the  learned  Kigaltius  re- 
marks, "Id  est,  Christianus.  Etenim  Christiani,  fratres,  Jideles,  sancti. 
Sanetos,  apostolus  vocat  eos,  qui  non  sunt  /oris,  sive  extra  ecclesiam. 
Sanetos  opponit  gentibus,  ethnicis." — "That  is,  Christian.  For  saints  are 
Christians,  brothers,  faithful  persons.  The  apostle  calls  those  saints 
who  are  not  without,  or  out  of  the  church.  He  contrasts  saints  with 
gentiles  or  heathens."  Vide  Tertulliani,  De  Anima,  c.  xxxix.,  Works  t 
page  294,  Paris  folio  ed.,  1675. 


32 


SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM. 


wives  and  husbands,  children  and  parents,  servants  and  , 
masters;  and  the  duties  belonging  to  those  several  rela- 
tions are  specified  and  enforced  upon  a  Christian  basis. 
Accordingly,  he  says,  "  Children/' — ta  tixm,  those  of 
you  who  are  children — "  obey  your  parents  in  the  Lord/' 
And  the  fathers  have  a  correspondent  duty  imposed  upon 
them — to  bring  up  their  children  in  the  nurture  and  ad- 
monition of  the  Lord.  Does  not  this  clearly  show  that 
the  children,  as  well  as  the  parents,  were  members  of  the 
household  of  faith,  and,  as  such,  must  have  been  intro- 
duced to  the  fellowship  of  the  church  by  baptism,  as  the 
Heaven-appointed  ordinance  of  initiation  ? 

4.  Children  were  baptized  by  the  apostles — they  are 
therefore  proper  subjects  of  baptism. 

When  the  apostle  baptized  Stephanas  and  Lydia,  he  bap- 
tized also  their  families.  The  term  oixos  means  family \ 
as  distinct  from  oixla,  household.  It  is  so  rendered  by 
Bloomfield,  in  1  Cor.  i.  16,  who  cites  a  passage  from 
Ignatius,  in  which  the  term  is  used  in  that  sense,  as  under 
it  the  wife  and  children  are  specifically  embraced.  The 
apostle  notes  the  distinction  between  these  two  terms. 
Thus  he  baptized  the  oikos,  the  family of  Stephanas;  but 
he  speaks  of  the  oikia,  the  household  of  Stephanas,  as 
addicting  themselves  to  the  ministry  of  the  saints,  that  is, 
performing  the  duties  of  hospitality  toward  them.  Such 
services  would  not,  of  course,  be  restricted  to  Stephanas, 
with  his  wife  and  children,  the  oikos  of  Stephanas,  but 
would  be  rendered  also  by  the  servants  of  the  family,  in 
which  case  the  word  oikia  is  proper  to  be  used,  and  it  is 
used  accordingly.  1  Cor.  xvi.  15. 

This  plain  view  of  the  subject  explodes  the  notion  that 
all  the  members  of  the  family  of  Stephanas,  baptized  by 
St.  Paul,  must  have  been  adults,  because  forsooth,  six  or 
eight  years  afterward,  they  are  spoken  of  as  addicted  to  the 
ministry  of  the  saints.  It  is  not  said  that  this  service 
was  rendered  by  the  oikos,  the  family,  of  Stephanas;  nor 
is  it  said  that  the  oikia,  the  household,  of  Stephanas 
was  baptized  by  the  apostle.  This  distinction  ought  to  be 
noted  in  the  translation.    In  like  manner,  it  was  not  the 


INFANTS. 


oikia,  the  household  of  Lydia,  but  her  oikos,  her  fa« 
MILY,  that  was  baptized ;  and  this  embraced  only  her 
children.  It  is  preposterous  to  say  that  her  oikos  was  her 
"  journeymen-dyers,"  and  that  they  were  "  the  brethien" 
spoken  of,  (Acts  xvi.  40,)  whom  Paul  and  Silas  comforted 
after  their  imprisonment !  Nay,  these  brethren  were  neither 
servants  nor  sons  of  Lydia  :  they  were  probably  no  other 
than  Luke  and  Timothy,  who  sojourned  at  Lydia' s  house 
during  the  imprisonment  of  Paul  and  Silas,  and  who  were 
left  by  them  at  Philippi.    Compare  Acts  xx.  6. 

When  the  Philippian  jailer  was  baptized,  "all  his"  were 
baptized  with  him.  This  was  exactly  in  accordance  with 
the  Jewish  custom.  When  they  received  proselytes  by 
circumcision,  they  administered  the  rite  of  initiation  to 
the  male  children  of  the  family.  And  in  their  proselyte 
baptisms,  they  included  the  children  with  their  believing 
parents.  This  is  a  dictate  of  nature,  as  well  as  a  provision 
of  the  old  dispensation.  It  is  very  bold  to  say  that  there 
were  no  infants  in  any  of  the  numerous  families  that  were 
baptized  by  the  apostles.  The  families  baptized  were  more 
likely  to  comprehend  children  than  adults,  for  the  latter 
would  not  have  been  baptized  except  on  their  personal 
profession  of  faith,  whereas  the  children  would  be  baptized 
on  the  responsibility  of  their  parents.  Hence  the  frequency 
of  family  baptisms. 

This  was  the  apostolic  rule,  as  it  is  that  of  modern  mis- 
sionaries among  the  heathen.  The  apostles  would  very 
naturally  so  construe  the  Saviour's  command  :  "  Go  ye 
therefore  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost : 
teaching  them  to  observe  all  things,  whatsoever  I  have 
commanded  you."  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  20.  Suppose  a  simi- 
lar command  had  been  given  in  reference  to  the  Jewish 
religion,  how  would  it  have  been  understood  ?  Teach  all 
nations — or,  rather,  fxaSyjtivcsats,  proselyte,  make  disciples 
of  all  nations — circumcising  them  and  instructing  them 
in  the  Hebrew  faith.  Would  the  rite  have  been  restricted 
to  adults,  on  the  ground  that  children  are  not  specified  ? 
Rather,  would  it  not  have  been  extended  to  children,  on 
2* 


34 


SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM. 


the  ground  that  they  are  not  excluded  ?  And,  is  not  this 
the  most  obvious  way  to  accomplish  the  end  in  view  ?  If 
we  pledge  our  children  to  Christianity  from  their  very 
birth,  by  bringing  them  under  the  bond  of  the  covenant, 
and  teach  them  the  Saviour's  commands  as  soon  as  they 
can  lisp  his  name,  will  they  not  be  more  likely  to  become 
his  disciples,  than  if  they  are  abandoned  as  profane  per- 
sons, unfit  for  a  name  and  a  place  among  his  followers  ? 
The  idea  of  such  abandonment  is  repulsive  to  our  natural 
sentiments  and  utterly  contrary  to  the  genius  of  our  be- 
nevolent and  holy  religion. 

5.  The  fathers  claimed  apostolical  authority  for  the 
baptism  of  infants,  and  baptized  them  accordingly. 

Justin  Martyr,  who  wrote  about  forty  years  after  the 
death  of  St.  John,  says  :  "  Many  persons  among  us,  sixty 
or  seventy  years  old,  of  both  sexes,  who  were  made  disci- 
ples to  Christ  in  their  infancy,  ix  rtalScov,  continue  uncor- 
rupted."  He  uses  the  very  term  which  our  Lord  uses  iL 
Matt,  xxviii.  19 — Ifiad^tsvO^aav ;  and  as  there  is  no  other 
way  to  make  infants  disciples  of  Christ  but  by  baptism, 
which  Justin  expressly  calls  "the  circumcision  of  Christ," 
and  as  those  of  whom  he  speaks  were  baptized,  A.  D.  70 
or  80,  they  were  baptized  by  the  apostles,  or  by  their 
contemporaries.  In  "  Questions  and  Answers  to  the  Or- 
thodox/7 ascribed  to  Justin,  occurs  this  passage,  in  keep- 
ing with  the  foregoing  : — "The  children — ta  fif&tyq — of  the 
good  are  deemed  worthy  of  baptism,  through  the  faith  of 
those  who  bring  them  to  be  baptized." 

To  the  same  effect  is  the  testimony  of  Irenaeus,  Bishop 
of  Lyons,  and  disciple  of  Poly  carp,  who  was  intimately 
acquainted  with  St.  John.  Irenaeus  was  born  about  the 
time  of  the  death  of  that  apostle.  He  says,  "  Christ  came 
to  save  all  persons  by  himself — all,  I  say,  who  by  him  are 
born  again  to  God — infants  and  little  ones,  and  children, 
and  youths,  and  elder  persons — renascuntur  in  Deum: 
infantes,  et  parvulos,  et  pueros,  etjuvenes,  et  seniores."  We 
scarcely  need  state  that  the  fathers  constantly  spoke  of 
baptism  as  regeneration,  or  at  least  included  the  former 
in  their  idea  of  the  latter.  Irenaeus  himself  says  :  "When 


INFANTS. 


35 


Christ  gave  to  his  apostles  the  commission  of  regenerating 
unto  God — regenerationis  in  Deum — he  said  to  them,  Go 
and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them."  Yet  he  affirms 
that  children  of  all  ages  were  regenerated  or  baptized. 

Tertullian  was  born  about  sixty  years  after  the  death 
of  St.  John.  Embracing  the  strange  notion  that  baptism 
washes  away  all  previous  sins,  this  learned  but  visionary 
father  recommended  a  deviation  from  the  established  prac- 
tice of  the  church  by  a  delay  of  baptism,  unless  the  life 
of  the  child  were  in  danger.  He  says :  "  According  to 
every  one's  condition  and  disposition,  and  also  their  age, 
the  delaying  of  baptism  is  more  profitable,  especially  in 
the  case  of  little  children."  For  reasons  equally  valid, 
he  says,  unmarried  persons,  who  are  likely  to  be  visited 
with  temptation — both  those  who  were  never  married  and 
those  who  are  in  a  widowed  state — and  other  persons  oc- 
cupied with  the  cares  of  life,  ought  to  defer  their  baptism. 
He  adduces  a  variety  of  arguments — sufficiently  silly — to 
induce  the  postponement  of  baptism  in  the  case  of  in- 
fants;* but  the  one  great  conclusive  argument  he  does 
not  so  much  as  insinuate — to  wit :  that  infant  baptism 
was  a  novelty  in  the  church  and  had  not  been  practised 
by  the  apostles.  There  is  but  one  way  to  account  for  this 
omission  :  Tertullian  could  not  deny  a  fact  with  which 
everybody  was  acquainted.    Indeed,  notwithstanding  his 


*  One  of  those  arguments  is  worthy  of  note,  as  it  contains  the  earliest 
reference  to  sponsors  in  baptism :  "  Quid  enim  necesse  est  sp>onsores 
etiam  periculo  ingerif  quia  et  ipsi  per  mortalitatem  destituere  pro- 
missiones  suas  possunt,  et proventu  malce  indolis  falli."  "Why  bring 
the  sponsors  into  danger  ?  because  they  may  fail  of  their  promises  by 
death,  and  they  may  be  deceived  by  the  child's  proving  wicked."  On 
this  passage  the  learned  annotator  on  Tertullian,  Prior  Philip,  says : 
"  Puerorum  susceptores  qui  Grecis  dvadoxoi,  quasi  fidejussores  sunt. 
Eorum  officium  est  infantem  instruere,  et  ad  bene  vivendum  adhortari 
et  hinc  sensum  auctoris  ediscere  potes."  De  Baptismo  :  r.  xviii,  "  The 
undertakers  of  children  are  a  kind  of  sureties.  Their  office  is  to  train 
the  children  and  exhort  them  to  live  well ;  and  from  this  you  may  learn 
Tertullian's  meaning."  For  any  thing  that  appears  in  TertulHan's  re- 
ference to  sponsors  in  baptism ;  they  may  have  been  the  parents  of  the 
children,  as  they  were  in  the  times  of  the  apostles,  and  as  they  always 
ought  to  be — no  others  should  be  allowed  as  substitutes  of  the  parents, 
except  when  the  latter  are  dead,  or  otherwise  unavailable. 


36 


SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM. 


opposition  to  infant  baptism  on  the  grounds  specified,  he 
never  questioned  the  right  of  infants  to  the  ordinance,  but 
allowed  them  to  be  baptized  when  their  lives  were  in  dan- 
ger, and  that  too  by  a  layman  when  a  minister  could  not 
be  procured.  It  should  be  remarked,  moreover,  that  his 
recommendation  of  delay  in  ordinary  cases,  was  not  uni- 
versally respected,  nor  permanently  followed — though  for 
a  century  or  two  it  wrought  considerable  mischief  in  the 
church.  His  novel  and  superstitious  speculations,  how- 
ever, afford  triumphant  proof  of  the  apostolic  practice  of 
infant  baptism. 

Origen  was  born  at  Alexandria,  A.  D.  185.  His  father, 
grandfather,  and  great-grandfather  were  Christians :  it  is 
likely  the  Origen  family  was  brought  into  the  church  by 
St.  Mark,  and  the  elder  branches  were  for  many  years 
contemporary  with  the  "  faithful  men"  whom  that  evan- 
gelist placed  over  the  Alexandrian  church.  Origen  himself 
was  a  very  learned  man,  and  he  had  lived  in  Greece, 
Rome,  Cappadocia,  and  Arabia,  and  for  a  long  time  in 
Syria  and  Palestine.  Surely  if  any  one  knew  what  was 
apostolic  doctrine  on  this  subject,  Origen  must  have  known. 
Yet  he  says  expressly,  speaking  of  original  sin,  "For  this 
cause  the  church  received  from  the  apostles  an  order  to 
give  baptism  even  to  infants :  Pro  hoc  ecclesia  ah  apostolis 
traditionem  suscepit  etiam  parvulis  bapttsmum  dare." 
He  adds :  "  For  they  to  whom  the  divine  mysteries  were 
committed  knew  that  there  is  in  all  persons  the  natural 
pollution  of  sin,  which  must  be  done  away  by  water  and 
the  Spirit."  The  force  of  this  testimony  is  seen  in  the  at- 
tempts of  Antipedobaptists  to  evade  it  on  the  ground  that 
it  occurs  in  a  Latin  translation  by  Ruffinus,  who  may  have 
manufactured  the  passage.  A  bright  idea !  Ruffinus,  who 
had  secret  doubts  on  the  subject  of  original  sin,  foisted 
into  Origen's  work  the  strongest  argument  in  its  favor ! 
What  Ruffinus  did  for  Origen  in  translating  his  Com- 
mentary on  Romans,  we  suppose  Jerome  did  for  him  in 
translating. his  Homily  on  Luke,  though  that  learned  father 
protests  he  "  changed  nothing,  but  expressed  every  thing 
as  it  was  in  the  original."    In  this  Homily,  Origen  says  : 


INFANTS. 


37 


"  Infants  are  baptized  for  the  remission  of  sins.  And  be- 
cause by  the  sacrament  of  baptism  our  native  pollution  is 
taken  away,  therefore  infants  may  be  baptized."  He  uses 
this  argument  for  original  sin,  in  his  Homily  on  Leviticus  : 
"  Baptism  is  given  to  infants,  according  to  the  practice  of 
the  church,  when  if  there  were  nothing  in  infants  that 
needed  forgiveness  and  mercy,  the  grace  of  baptism  would 
be  superfluous  to  them."  In  another  place  he  propounds 
a  question  concerning  the  guardian  angels  of  children  : 
64  When  were  the  angels  appointed  to  them  ?  at  their 
birth,  or  at  their  baptism  V-  These,  of  course,  are  all 
very  bad  translations  !  So  bad,  that  if  they  be  permitted 
to  pass,  and  Origen  be  considered  a  competent  witness  in 
regard  to  a  plain. matter  of  fact,  the  conclusion  is  certain — ■ 
the  apostles  and  their  successors  baptized  infants. 

In  the  year  253,  a  council  of  bishops  was  held  in  Car- 
thage. This  assembly  was  called  upon  by  Fidus,  a  coun- 
try bishop,  to  decide  whether  or  not  infants  might  be  bap- 
tized before  they  were  eight  days  old.  The  sentence  of 
the  council  was  communicated  to  Fidus  by  Cyprian.  He 
says,  "  Whereas  you  judge  that  the  rule  of  circumcision 
is  to  be  observed  so  that  none  should  be  baptized  and 
sanctified  before  the  eighth  day  after  he  is  born,  we  are  all 
in  our  assembly  of  a  contrary  opinion.  It  is  not  for  us  to 
hinder  any  person  from  baptism  and  the  grace  of  God, 
who  is  merciful,  and  kind,  and  affectionate  to  all :  which 
rule,  as  it  is  to  govern  universally,  so  we  think  it  more 
especially  to  be  observed  in  reference  to  infants  and  per- 
sons newly  born."  It  seems  the  quasi  antipedobaptism  of 
Tertullian  had  but  little  influence  with  the  council,  the 
members  of  which,  sixty-six  in  number,  must  have  known 
what  was  the  practice  of  the  apostles,  as  they  lived  so 
near  their  times. 

Gregory  Nazianzen,  styled  the  Christian  Isocrates,  be- 
cause of  his  eloquence,  was  born  A.  D.  330.  He  opposed 
the  postponement  of  baptism,  and  urged  the  administra- 
tion of  the  ordinance  to  infants.  "  For,"  says  he,  "  it  is 
better  they  be  sanctified  without  their  own  sense  of  it, 
than  that  they  should  be  unsealed  and  uninitiated,  and 


38 


SUBJECTS  OE  BAPTISM. 


our  reason  for  this  is  circumcision,  which  was  performed 
on  the  eighth  day,  and  was  a  typical  seal,  and  was  prac- 
tised on  those  who  had  no  reason.""  Unless  there  was 
danger,  however,  he  recommended  the  postponement  of 
their  baptism  until  they  were  three  years  old.  Gregory, 
by  the  way,  speaks  with  commendation  of  the  baptism 
of  Basil  in  his  infancy. 

Ambrose  speaks  of  the  baptism  of  infants,  and  refers 
the  custom  to  the  apostle?'  times.  Chrysostom  also  speaks 
of  baptism,  as  Christian  circumcision,  and  as  conferred  on 
infants.  So  also  does  Jerome,  and  indeed  nearly  all  the 
fathers  of  that  age ;  but  it  is  useless  to  give  additional  cita- 
tions. 

We  must  not,  however,  pass  over  the  proof  of  the  apos- 
tolic, or  rather  Divine,  origin  of  baptism,  which  is  fur- 
nished in  the  Pelagian  controversy.  By  a  singular  coin- 
cidence, Pelagius  and  his  illustrious  opponent  were  born 
on  the  same  day,  Nov.  13,  354.  Pelagius,  having  denied 
original  sin,  was  pressed  by  his  antagonists  with  the  ar- 
gument in  favor  of  that  doctrine  based  upon  the  baptism 
of  infants.  u  The  whole  church,"  says  Augustin,  u  has 
of  old  constantly  held,  that  baptized  infants  do  obtain  re- 
mission of  original  sin  by  the  baptism  of  Christ.  For  my 
part,  I  do  not  remember  that  I  ever  heard  any  other  thing 
from  any  Christians  that  received  the  Old  and  New  Tes- 
taments, neither  from  such  as  were  in  the  Catholic  church, 
nor  yet  from  such  as  belonged  to  any  sect  or  schism.  I 
do  not  remember  that  I  ever  read  otherwise,  in  any  writer 
that  I  could  ever  find  treating  of  these  matters,  that  fol- 
lowed the  canonical  Scriptures,  or  did  mean,  or  pretend  so 
to  do." 

Pelagius,  in  defending  himself  in  his  letter  to  Inno- 
cent, says,  "  Men  slander  me,  as  if  I  denied  the  sacrament 
of  baptism  to  infants.  I  never  heard  even  an  impious 
heretic  say  they  ought  not  to  be  baptized.  For  who  is  so 
ignorant  of  the  evangelical  writings  as  to  have  such  a 
thought  ?  Who  can  be  so  impious  as  to  hinder  infants 
from  being  baptized?" 

His  friend  Celestius  affirms  :  "  We  acknowledge  infants 


INFANTS. 


39 


ought  to  be  baptized  for  the  remission  jtf  sins,  according 
to  the  rule  of  the  universal  church,  and  according  to  the 
sentence  of  the  gospel/' 

These  men,  be  it  remembered,  were  the  most  learned 
men  of  the  age.  Pelagius  was  born  in  Britain,  and  edu- 
cated at  the  celebrated  seminary  at  Bangor,  and  he  after- 
ward travelled  through  the  principal  countries  of  Europe, 
Asia,  and  Africa.  So  also  did  Celestius — and  yet  they 
declared  they  never  heard  of  any  one  that  denied  the 
right  of  infants  to  baptism*  They  would  gladly  have  de- 
nied it,  had  there  been  any  possibility  of  doing  so,  as  it 
constituted  the  basis  of  a  formidable  argument  against 
their  peculiar  notions ;  but  there  was  the  stubborn  fact, 
known  and  read  of  all  men,  and  the  Pelagians  could  not 
deny  it.  Yet  if  infant  baptism  had  been  foisted  into  the 
church  after  the  death  of  the  apostles,  they  could  not 
have  been  ignorant  of  it.  The  novelty,  like  the  paschal, 
prelatical,  and  pontifical  innovations,  would  have  occa- 
sioned some  controversy,  and  the  time  of  its  introduction 
would  certainly  have  been  known  by  somebody  in  the  first 
two  centuries  after  the  apostles.  But  not  the  slightest 
difference  on  the  subject  of  infant  baptism — except  the 
vagary  of  Tertullian — is  noted  in  any  of  the  writings  of 
the  fathers ;  though  every  variation  from  apostolic  rule  is 
set  down  in  the  lists  of  heresies  compiled  by  Irenseus, 
Epiphanius,  Philastrius,  Augustin,  and  Theodoret. 

Let  it  be  observed,  we  do  not  adduce  "the  unanimous 
consent  of  the  fathers,"  as  authority  for  the  practice  of  in- 
fant baptism,  as  "  we  have  a  more  sure  word  of  prophecy;" 
nor  do  we  endorse  their  opinions  concerning  the  virtue  of 
baptism  :  we  have  nothing  to  do  with  their  illogical  argu- 
ments or  their  erratic  speculations.  We  cite  the  fathers 
as  witnesses  to  a  fact,  concerning  which  they  were  every 
way  competent  to  give  testimony.  That  testimony  abso- 
lutely demonstrates  the  apostolic,  or  rather,  Divine,  origin 
of  infant  baptism. 

6.  The  church  in  every  part  of  the  world,  and  in  every 
age  succeeding  that  of  Augustin,  endorsed  by  theory  and 
practice  the  claim  of  infants  to  this  holy  ordinance. 


40 


SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM. 


It  would  be  a  waste  of  time  to  establish  this  position,  as 
.he  historical  facts  which  it  involves  are  known  and  read 
of  all  men. 

Nor  does  authentic  history  furnish  an  instance  of  defec- 
tion from  the  apostolic  usage  until  the  Anabaptists  arose 
in  the  fifteenth  century.  Mr.  Wall  seems  to  attach  undue 
importance  to  the  slanderous  allegations  of  Peter  of 
Clugny  against  Peter  Bruis,  who  was  burned  by  the  papists 
at  St.  Giles  in  France,  A.  D.  1126.  The  ill-informed  ab- 
bot charged  Bruis  with  certain  errors,  which  Bossuet  and 
others  magnified  into  the  Manichean  heresy.  Among 
those  errors  is  a  denial  of  infant  baptism.  But  as  he  is 
charged  with  a  denial  of  other  doctrines  which  he  mani- 
festly held,  and  only  denied  the  superstitions  which  popery 
had  engrafted  upon  them,  Mr.  Faber,  after  a  careful  exami- 
nation of  the  subject,  concludes  that  it  was  so  in  reference 
to  this  ordinance. 

Indeed,  it  is  impossible  to  reconcile  the  contradictory 
allegations  made  against  the  Albigenses,  by  Peter  of 
Clugny,  Bernard,  Ecbert,  Enervin,  Beinerius,  Guy,  and 
other  papists ;  or  to  ascertain  from  them  what  were  the 
real  sentiments  of  the  Albigenses. 

Peter  of  Clugny  represents  them  as  saying  to  the 
papists,  "  Christ,  sending  his  disciples  to  preach,  says  in  the 
gospel,  6  Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the  gospel 
to  every  creature.  He  that  believeth,  and  is  baptized, 
shall  be  saved ;  but  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be 
damned/  From  these  words  of  our  Saviour  i£  is  plain 
that  none  can  be  saved  unless  he  believe  and  be  baptized  : 
that  is,  have  both  Christian  faith  and  baptism.  For  not 
one  of  these,  but  both  together,  do  save.  So  that  infants, 
though  they  be  by  you  baptized,  yet,  since  by  reason  of 
their  age  they  cannot  believe,  are  not  saved.  It  is  there- 
fore an  idle  and  vain  thing  for  you  to  wash  persons  with 
water,  at  such  a  time  when  you  may  indeed  cleanse  their 
skin  from  dirt  in  a  carnal  manner,  but  not  purge  their 
souls  from  sin.  But  we  do  stay  till  the  proper  time  of 
faith,  and  when  a  person  is  capable  to  know  his  God  and 
believe  in  him,  then  we  do  (not  as  you  charge  us,  rebap- 


INFANTS. 


41 


tize  him,  but)  baptize  him.  For  he  is  to  be  accounted  as 
not  yet  baptized,  who  is  not  washed  with  that  baptism 
by  which  sins  are  done  away."  According  to  this,  infants 
cannot  be  saved,  baptized,  or  not  baptized. 

Keinerius,  however,  attributes  to  them  a  doctrine  pre- 
cisely opposite  to  this.  He  was  seventeen  years  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Catharistic  community,  and  afterwards  gave 
the  following  account  of  their  principles.  We  have  the 
Latin  original  before  us.  He  says,  "  The  opinions  com- 
mon to  all  the  Cathari  are  these  :  This  world,  and  all 
things  that  are  in  it,  were  created  by  the  devil.  All  the 
sacraments  of  the  church,  to  wit,  the  sacrament  of  bap- 
tism by  material  water,  and  the  other  sacraments,  profit 
nothing  to  salvation,  and  are  false  sacraments,  inasmuch 
as  they  are  not  the  true  sacraments  of  Christ  and  his 
church,  but  deceptive  and  diabolical,  and  appertaining  only 
to  a  church  of  malignants.  Carnal  matrimony  is  a  mortal 
sin ;  and,  in  the  future  world,  a  person  is  not  punished 
more  heavily  for  adultery  and  incest  than  for  lawful  wed- 
lock. There  is  no  future  resurrection  of  the  body.  To 
eat  flesh  or  eggs  or  cheese,  even  in  a  case  of  urgent  ne- 
cessity, is  a  mortal  sin.  The  secular  authorities  act  sin- 
fully when  they  punish  with  death  malefactors  or  heretics. 
No  one  can  be  saved  except  through  their  ministration. 
All  unbaptized  infants  suffer  eternal  punishment  no  less 
severely  than  homicides  and  robbers.  There  is  no  pur- 
gatory." He  then  goes  on  to  state  the  additional  opi- 
nions held  by  some  of  the  Cathari,  viz.  Manichean,  An- 
titrinitarian,  and  Universalist  blasphemies  and  damnable 
heresies.  He  writes  with  all  the  malignity  of  an  apostate 
and  an  inquisitor,  and  his  charges  are  utterly  unworthy 
'of  credit — as  are  those  also  of  Peter  of  Clugny,  who  ac- 
knowledges that  his  statements  were  not  made  from  his 
own  personal  acquaintance  with  the  doctrinal  system  of 
the  heretics  whom  he  persecuted. 

It  is  no  part  of  our  present  duty  to  defend  the  Albi- 
genses  from  these  malicious  and  slanderous  charges  of  their 
enemies.    We  merely  cite  them  to  show  their  contradic- 


42 


SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM. 


tory  character — especially  in  regard  to  the  baptism  of 
infants. 

Roger  Hoveden,  a  popish  historian  of  those  times, 
gives  an  account  of  a  council  held  at  Lombers,  near  Albi, 
in  1176,  for  the  purpose  of  examining  those  reputed  he- 
retics, sometimes  called  Good  Men,  and  also  Albigenses, 
from  Albi,  the  place  at  which  many  of  them  resided.  At 
this  council,  he  says,  they  proclaimed  their  creed  to  the 
assembled  multitude.  That  creed,  as  reported  by  him,  is 
now  before  us,  in  Latin.  One  of  the  articles  reads  thus  : 
"  Credimus  etiam  :  quod  non  salvatur  quis,  nisi  qui  bap- 
tizatur ;  et  parvulos  salvari  per  baptisma.  We  believe 
also,  that  no  one  is  saved,  unless  he  is  baptized ;  and  that 
infants  are  saved  by  baptism. "  The  Benedictine  historian 
of  Languedoe,  dates  the  time  of  this  council,  1165,  and 
says  that  the  heretics  there  examined  were  Henricians, 
or  the  followers  of  Henry,  the  famous  disciple  of  Peter 
Bruis. 

Popliniere,  a  later  historian,  says,  "  That  the  religion  of 
the  Albigenses  differed  very  little  from  that  now  professed 
by  Protestants,  appears  from  many  fragments  and  monu- 
ments, which,  in  the  ancient  language  of  their  country, 
have  been  written  concerning  the  history  of  those  times, 
and  also  from  the  public  and  solemn  disputation,  held  be- 
tween the  bishop  of  Pamiers,  and  Arnold  Hot,  one  of 
their  ministers.  The  Acts  of  this  Disputation,  written  in 
a  dialect  approaching  rather  the  Catalonian  than  to  the 
French,  remain  entire  down  to  the  present  day.  Indeed, 
many  have  assured  me,  that  they  had  seen  the  articles 
of  their  faith,  engraved  on  certain  ancient  tablets  which 
are  at  Albi,  adding,  that  they  were  every  where  conform- 
able to  the  doctrine  of  Protestants." 

Yignier  speaks  of  one  of  their  Confessions,  written  in 
the  Basque  language,  which  entirely  agreed  with  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Waldenses. 

Hoveden,  moreover,  gives  an  account  or  the  examina- 
tion of  Baymund,  Bernard  Baymund,  and  other  heresi- 
archs,  in  1178,  before  Cardinal  Peter,  and  a  large  body 
of  prelates,  and  other  ecclesiastics.     The  Albigensean 


INFANTS. 


43 


heretics  produced  on  that  occasion,  a  paper  on  which 
they  had  written  the  articles  of  their  faith.  From  that 
Confession,  which  is  now  before  us,  in  Latin,  we  quote  the 
following  article  : — "  Asseruerunt  quoque,  quod  jparvuli 
vel  adultij  nostro  baptismate  baptizati,  salvantur  ;  et  mil- 
luSj  sine  eodem  baptismo  potest  salvari.  They  also  af- 
firmed, that  infants  or  adults,  who  are  baptized  by  oui 
baptism,  are  saved,  and  that  none  can  be  saved  without 
the  same  baptism." 

With  all  these  testimonies  before  him,  how  can  anv 
one  believe  that  the  Albigenses  were  antipedobaptists  ? 
It  is  obvious,  however,  that  if  any  of  them  did  repudiate 
infant  baptism  it  was  a  novelty  in  that  age,  for  they 
are  represented  by  Peter  of  Clugny,  as  rebaptizing 
those  who  had  been  baptized  in  their  infancy.  They 
themselves  solemnly  protested  that  they  believed  in  the 
baptism  of  infants ;  and  the  apostate  Eeinerius  says  that 
they  all  maintained  the  damnation  of  unbaptized  infants  ! 
Which  are  we  to  credit  ?  It  is  not  unlikely  that  some  of 
them  did  repudiate  the  baptisms  administered  by  the 
popish  priests,  and  would  rather  their  children  should 
have  died  without  baptism  than  receive  it  from  "  a  church 
of  malign  ants."  This,  of  itself,  was  sufficient  material 
out  of  which  to  fabricate  the  charges  of  antipedobaptism, 
and  indeed  the  Manichean  heresy  of  the  rejection  of 
baptism  altogether. 

Mr.  Faber  says,  in  his  great  work  on  the  Vallenses  and 
Albigenses,  p.  174  :  "  Judging  from  the  language  which 
they  are  reported  to  have  held  on  that  topic,  I  am  myself 
satisfied,  that  they  did  nothing  more  than  deny  the  spi- 
ritual grace  of  regeneration  to  follow,  ex  opere  operato,  tho 
outward  administration  of  the  material  sign  in  baptism, 
and  that  this  was  miscontrued  into  an  assertion,  that  in- 
fants ought  not  to  be  baptized,  inasmuch  as  infants  cannot 
by  any  proper  faith  of  their  own,  be  worthy  recipients." 

As  the  followers  of  Peter  Bruis  were  a  branch  of  the 
Albigenses,  and  as  the  Albigenses  commurfed  occasionally 
with  the  Waldenses  during  that  century,  and  were  merged 
into  their  churches  in  the  next  century,  it  seems  impossi* 


44 


SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM. 


ble  that  they  should  be  antipedobaptists.  For  the  Wah 
denses  always  protested  that  they  had  never  deviated  from 
the  principles  and  usages  of  their  ancestors  of  remote  anti- 
quity ;  and  there  is  nothing  in  history  to  gainsay  their 
statement. 

In  the  seventeenth  article  of  the  Confession  of  An- 
grogna,  1535,  the  Waldenses  say :  "  We  receive  the 
Lord's  supper  to  demonstrate  our  perseverance  in  the 
faith,  according  to  the  promise  we  made  in  our  baptism 
in  our  infancy"  As  those  who  set  forth  this  confession 
were  baptized  before  the  Lutheran  Reformation  was  be- 
gun, the  barbesj  or  ministers,  who  baptized  them  did  not,  as 
some  insinuate,  adopt  the  practice  of  infant  baptism  from 
the  Reformers. 

In  the  admirable  Confession  of  the  Waldenses,  presented 
A.  D.  1542,  to  Francis  the  First,  King  of  France,  they  use 
this  language :  "  We  believe  and  confess  that  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  having  abolished  circumcision  instituted 
baptism,  through  which  we  are  received  into  the  church 
of  the  people  of  God.  This  outward  baptism  exhibits  to 
us  another  inward  baptism,  namely,  the  grace  of  God 
which  cannot  be  seen  with  the  eyes.  The  apostles  and 
other  ministers  of  the  church  baptize,  using  the  word  of 
God  in  order  to  a  sacrament,  and  give  only  the  visible 
sign;  but  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Chief  Shepherd, 
alone  gives  the  increase  and  causes  that  we  may  receive 
the  things  signified.  They  greatly  err  who  deny  baptism 
to  the  children  of  Christians." 

That  there  may  have  been  individual  antipedobaptists 
among  the  Waldenses  may  be  admitted — though  of  this 
we  have  no  satisfactory  proof* — that  there  were  persons 


*  Bossuet  is  obliged  to  admit  that  the  Waldenses  or  Vaudois  prac- 
tised infant  baptism.  He  says,  Var.  xi.  109  : — "As  for  baptism,  not- 
withstanding these  ignorant  heretics  had  cast  off  its  most  ancient  cere- 
monies with  contempt,  there  is  no  doubt  but  they  received  it.  One 
might  only  be  surprised  at  Renier's  words,  as  uttered  by  the  Vaudois, 
'  that  ablution  give>i  to  children,  is  of  no  advantage  to  them.'  But, 
whereas  this  ablution  is  in  the  list  of  those  ceremonies  of  baptism, 
which  were  disapproved  by  these  heretics,  it  is  plain  he  speaks  of  the 
wine  given  to  children  after  their  baptism :  a  custom  that  may  be  stilJ 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 


45 


who  denied  baptism  to  children,  when  this  Confession  was 
drawn  up,  is  evident,  and  it  is  equally  evident  that  they 
received  no  sympathy  from  the  Waldensean  church.  Who 
they  were  is  not  hard  to  divine,  upon  a  comparison  of 
dates :  without  doubt  they  were  the  Anabaptists,  who  at 
that  time  were  busily  engaged  in  circulating  their  novel 
notion.  Hence,  for  the  first  time,  the  denial  of  baptism 
to  infants  is  condemned  in  the  Confession  of  the  Wal- 
denses,  it  being  their  peculiar  glory,  as  a  virgin  church, 
to  denounce  the  novelties  of  each  succeeding  age,  and  to 
preserve  inviolate  the  pure  principles  and  apostolic  prac- 
tices of  the  "  most  ancient  stock  of  religion/' 

We  have  thus  established  the  position  that  the  apostles 
and  their  successors  practised  infant  baptizm,  as  instituted 
by  Christ;  and  we  may  challenge  any  man  to  show  a 
church,  in  any  part  of  the  world,  that  diverged  from  the 
apostolic  usage,  until  the  rise  of  the  Anabaptists  in  the 
sixteenth  century. 

SECTION  III. — OBJECTIONS  TO  INFANT  BAPTISM 
ANSWERED. 

It  seems  almost  superfluous  to  answer  the  objections 
brought  against  the  baptism  of  children.  Were  those  ob- 
jections a  thousand-fold  stronger  and  a  thousands-fold 
more  numerous  than  they  are,  they  could  not  affect  this 
question.  Nothing  can  prove  that  false,  whose  truth  has 
been  established.  Nevertheless,  we  will  test  the  strength 
of  those  formidable  objections. 


seen  in  many  ancient  rituals,  about  that  time,  and  which  was  a  rem- 
nant of  the  communion  heretofore  administered  to  them  under  the  li- 
quid species  only.  This  wine,  put  into  the  chalice  to  be  given  to  these 
children,  was  called  ablution,  because  this  action  resembled  the  ablu- 
tion taken  by  the  priest  at  Mass.  Again,  this  word  ablution  is  not  to 
be  found  in  Renier  as  signifying  baptism;  and  at  all  events,  if  men 
will  persist  to  have  it  signify  this  sacrament,  all  they  could  conclude 
from  it  would  be  for  the  worst,  viz.,  that  Reneir's  Vaudois  accounted 
as  null  whatever  baptism  was  given  by  unworthy  ministers,  such  as  they 
believed  all  our  priests  were — an  error  so  conformable  to  the  principles 
of  the  sect,  that  the  Vaudois,  whom  we  have  seen  approve  our  bap- 
tism, could  not  do  it  without  running  counter  to  their  own  doctrine." 


46 


SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM. 


1.  It  is  urged  that  children  cannot  understand  the 
meaning  of  the  ordinance,  and  therefore  it  ought  not  to 
be  administered  to  them. 

On  the  same  ground,  Hebrew  children  ought  not  to 
have  been  circumcised,  because  they  could  not  compre- 
hend the  meaning  of  the  rite.  And  yet  God  ordered  their 
circumcision. 

2.  It  is  said  children  should  not  be  baptized,  because 
they  cannot  perform  the  condition  of  baptism,  namely, 
faith. 

No  adult  would  have  been  admitted  to  circumcision 
without  faith,  yet  the  lack  of  faith  was  no  bar  to  the  ad- 
mission of  an  infant.  It  is  the  same  in  regard  to  baptism. 
Besides,  if  infants  must  not  be  baptized  because  they  lack 
faith,  for  the  same  reason  they  cannot  be  saved;  for  while 
it  is  said,  "He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be 
saved/''  it  is  also  added,  "  He  that  believeth  not  shall  be 
damned."  But  infants  are  not  excluded  from  salvation, 
because  they  lack  faith,  which  is  necessary  to  adults  :  so 
neither  are  they  to  be  excluded  from  baptism,  because 
they  are  incapable  of  faith,  without  which  adults  are  not 
eligible  to  the  ordinance. 

3.  It  is  contended  that  children  should  be  excluded 
from  baptism,  because  they  cannot  respond  to  its  obliga- 
tions. 

He  that  was  circumcised  under  the  Mosaic  dispensation 
was  a  debtor  to  do  the  whole  law;  but  Jewish  infants 
could  not  respond  to  the  obligations  imposed  by  circum- 
cision— nevertheless,  they  were  circumcised.  So  with  in- 
fants under  the  Christian  dispensation.  Baptism  does  not 
bind  them  to  perform  any  thing  which  they  will  be  at 
liberty  to  decline  when  they  shall  be  of  age  to  comprehend 
the  obligation.  Religion  is  not  a  matter  of  our  own  pick- 
ing and  choosing.  It  is  a  dispensation — a  prescription — 
a  covenant,  indeed,  but  one  to  which  we  are  bound  to  be 
parties,  whether  its  terms  be  relished  or  not.  In  truth, 
its  terms  are  not  relished  by  any  man  in  a  state  of  nature; 
and  no  one  assumes  the  obligations  of  religion  without 
first  o^ping  violence  to  himself — superseding  his  own  rea« 


1 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED.  47 


gonings  and  traversing  his  own  inclinations.  As  there- 
fore the  Israelites  not  only  covenanted  for  themselves,  but 
also  for  their  children,  who  were  not  at  liberty  to  cancel 
the  obligation  assumed  in  their  behalf,  so  Christians  may 
and  ought  to  bind  their  children  as  well  as  themselves 
with  the  bond  of  the  covenant.  Parents  have  the  natural 
right  to  make  contracts  for  their  children — as  well  in  re- 
ligion as  in  aught  besides,  provided  no  obligations  be  im- 
posed except  such  as  are  Divine  in  their  origin  and  salu- 
tary in  their  effect;  and  such  are  the  stipulations  of 
Christian  baptism. 

4.  It  is  argued  that  infants  ought  not  to  be  baptized, 
because  they  cannot  embrace  the  benefits  of  baptism. 

St.  Paul  tells  us  there  was  much  profit  in  circumcision, 
and  did  not  that  profit  inure  to  children,  though  they 
comprehended  it  not  ?  May  not  a  deed  of  gift  be  sealed 
to  a  child,  which  shall  be  valid,  though  he  cannot  under- 
stand it  ?  And  will  it  be  of  no  advantage  to  the  child 
when  grown  up  to  the  use  of  reason,  to  know  that  from 
his  very  birth  he  has  been  the  consecrated  and  recognized 
property  of  the  Most  High  ?  Will  it  not  answer  as  a 
check  to  evil  propensities,  a  safeguard  in  temptation,  an 
incentive  to  piety  and  virtue,  a  ground  of  hope  and  confi- 
dence in  prayer  ?  It  will,  if  all  the  parental  responsibili- 
ties involved  in  the  baptismal  consecration  of  children  be 
duly  discharged.  And  indeed,  when  parents  are  neglect- 
ful of  their  duty  in  this  respect,  the  simple  fact  of  our 
baptism  in  infancy  cannot  be  reflected  upon  by  us  without 
bringing  before  our  minds  the  blood-bought,  birthright 
privileges  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  of  which  our  baptism 
is  the  sign  and  seal. 

5.  It  is  said,  furthermore,  the  baptism  of  infants  is  un- 
necessary, as  they  can  be  saved  without  it. 

And  cannot  adults  be  saved  without  it,  if  no  one  will 
administer  it  to  them  ?  Shall  adult  baptism  be  therefore 
laid  aside  ?  Your  children,  if  they  die  in  infancy,  will 
be  saved  without  your  prayers,  but  will  you,  therefore, 
postpone  praying  for  them  until  they  reach  mature  age  ? 
They  may  be  saved  without  any  effort  on  your  part  to 


£8 


SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM. 


promote  their  salvation,  but  will  you  therefore  make  nc 
effort  on  their  behalf?  What  if  the  thought  of  your 
pious  concern  for  them,  even  while  they  were  hanging 
upon  the  breast,  should,  in  after  life,  rouse  their  moral 
sense,  and  quicken  them  into  religious  feeling,  and  lead 
to  their  salvation,  are  you  quite  sure  that  thei'r  baptism 
would  have  nothing  to  do  with  their  salvation  ?  Are  you 
indeed  certain  that  they  would  be  saved  without  it  ? 

6.  But  it  is  roundly  asserted,  there  is  no  command  to 
baptize  infants,  and  therefore  it  is  will-worship  to  baptize 
them. 

Not  quite  so  fast.  Suppose  there  were  no  command  to 
baptize  them,  there  is  no  precept  forbidding  it.  And 
there  ought  to  be  a  positive  interdict,  if  their  admission 
into  the  Christian  church  were  not  intended.  Infants  were 
admitted  to  the  Hebrew  church,  and  nothing  but  a  divine 
interdict  can  lawfully  exclude  them  from  the  Christian 
church,  which  is  only  a  development  of  the  former,  its 
boundaries  being  enlarged,  and  its  privileges  increased 
under  the  present  dispensation.  Among  the  natural 
branches  of  the  olive-tree  were  numerous  twigs,  partak- 
ing of  the  root  and  fatness  thereof — are  there  to  be  no 
twigs  among  the  grafted  branches  ?  Where  is  the  law 
forbidding  it  ?  Besides,  if  all  nations  are  to  be  discipled, 
are  not  infants  included  ?  And  if  they  are  to  be  made 
disciples,  are  they  not  to  be  baptized  ?  if  they  are  to  be 
incorporated  into  the  church,  must  they  not  be  subjected 
to  the  ordinance  of  initiation  ?  So  far  then  from  its  being 
will-worship  to  baptize  children,  it  is  nothing  but  a  modest 
acquiescence  in  the  divine  will  and  a  grateful  recognition  * 
of  the  divine  goodness.  It  may  not  be  u  will-worship"  to 
prevent  their  baptism ;  but  it  looks  very  much  like  wil- 
fulness— a  bold  attempt  to  reverse  the  legislation  of  Hea- 
ven, as  if  man  were  wiser  than  God. 

7.  But  it  is  still  urged,  that  it  is  unlawful  to  baptize 
children,  because  there  is  no  apostolic  precedent  for  infant 
baptism. 

Suppose  this  were  admitted,  it  does  not  follow  that 
children  are  not  to  be  baptized.    It  is  no  where  recorded 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 


49 


that  the  apostles  administered  the  Lord's  Supper  to  wo- 
men, yet  no  one  doubts  that  they  did,  and  no  one  thinks 
of  excluding  women  from  this  ordinance,  because  of  this 
omission  in  the  record.  Some,  indeed,  affirm  that  St. 
Paul  commands  women  to  commune  in  1  Cor.  xi.  28  : 
"  Let  a  man  examine  himself,  and  so  let  him  eat  of  that 
bread,  and  drink  of  that  cup."  They  ask,  "  Does  not  the 
term  dvdp^rcos,  there  used,  often  stand  as  the  name  of  our 
species,  without  regard  to  sex  ?"  Undoubtedly  it  does. 
But  then  it  often  stands  for  a  man  as  distinguished  from 
a  woman,  as  in  the  following  texts: — Gen.  ii.  18,  24, 
xxvi.  11;  xxxiv.  14;  Lev.  xix.  20;  Num.  xxv.  8;  Deu. 
xvii.  5;  xx.  7;  xxi.  15;  xxii.  30;  Est.  iv.  11;  Jer.  xliv. 
7 ;  Matt.  xix.  3,  5,  10 ;  Mark  x.  7 ;  1  Cor.  vii.  1 ;  Eph. 
v.  31 ;  Rev.  ix.  7,  8.  The  style  of  these  texts  is,  "man 
or  woman"' — "man  and  wife" — u  the  faces  of  men,  and  the 
hair  of  women ;"  and  in  none  of  them  is  ou^p  employed, 
but  dvOpurtos.  In  what  sense  it  is  used  in  1  Cor.  xi.  28, 
can  be  ascertained  only  by  analogy  and  inference,  leaving 
female  communion  far  more  remote  from  explicit  scriptural 
statement  and  apostolic  precedent,  than  the  baptism  of 
infants.  It  is,  indeed,  bold  to  say  that  there  is  no  apos- 
tolic precedent  for  infant  baptism.  When  the  apostles 
baptized  the  families  of  their  converts,  did  they  not  bap- 
tize their  children  ?  Where  is  the  intimation  that  any 
of  the  little  ones  were  excluded  ?  Indeed,  the  baptism 
of  the  families  of  those  primitive  converts  is  spoken  of  as 
a  matter  of  course,  like  the  ceremonial  initiation  of  the 
families  of  Jewish  proselytes.  The  family  thus  became  a 
Christian  family :  the  tenderest  infants  were  recognized  as 
relatively  "  holy,"  and  were  accordingly  brought  up  in  the 
nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord.  Now,  admitting  that 
tb'3  right  of  children  to  church-membership  has  never  been 
cancelled,  but  that  it  is  as  valid  under  the  new,  as  it  was 
under  the  old  dispensation,  ought  we  to  expect  any  thing 
more  determinate,  more  in  detail,  in  regard  to  apostolic 
practice  in  this  matter  than  what  the  Acts  and  Epistles 
afford  ?  Is  not  the  brief,  incidental,  matter-of-course  state- 
ment, that  the  families  of  Christian  converts  were  baptized 


50 


SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM. 


with  them,  exactly  what  might  be  expected  in  the  record  ? 
And  is  it  not  preposterous  to  look  for,  or  demand,  apos- 
tolic precedents  more  specific  ? 

8.  It  is  objected,  lastly,  that  the  baptism  of  infants  is 
the  occasion  of  superstition,  formality,  and  other  evils; 
and,  therefore,  they  ought  not  to  be  baptized. 

And  is  not  the  baptism  of  adults  ?  Is  not  the  institu- 
tion of  the  Lord's  Supper  ?  Is  not  the  ordination  of  men 
to  the  ministry?  In  a  word,  has  not  every  thing  in 
Christianity  been  abused  to  some  evil  purpose  or  other  ? 
And  have  not  the  most  sacred  things  been  the  most  abused? 
But  are  they,  therefore,  to  be  laid  aside  ? 

We  have  thus,  in  a  somewhat  summary,  but  to  our 
mind,  satisfactory  manner,  disposed  of  all  the  objections 
of  any  consequence,  that  have  been  urged  against  the 
baptism  of  children.  Their  examination,  in  connection 
with  the  unanswerable  arguments  adduced  in  defence  of 
infant  baptism,  not  only  confirms  us  in  our  belief  and 
practice  in  the  premises,  but  also  impresses  us  more  fully 
with  the  evil  of  innovation  in  religion.  The  point,  in 
itself,  may  seem  small :  it  may  not  be  considered  funda- 
mental; but  it  may  logically  involve  other  points  of  se- 
rious moment  and  of  pernicious  consequence.  This  matter 
is  so  well  presented  by  the  learned  John  Goodwin  in  the 
Preface  to  his  great  work,  "  Redemption  Redeemed,"  that 
we  cannot  in  any  other  way  so  well  close  the  present 
chapter,  as  by  transcribing  the  paragraph  in  question. 
It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  it  was  written  more  than 
two  hundred  years  ago  : — 

"  He  that  is  entangled  with  the  error  of  those  who  deny 
the  lawfulness  of  infant  baptism,  stands  obliged,  through 
his  engagement  to  this  one  error,  to  maintain  and  make 
good  these,  and  many  the  like  erroneous  and  anti-evan- 
gelical opinions. 

1.  That  God  was  more  gracious  to  infants  under  the 
law,  than  now  he  is  under  the  gospel ;  or,  which  is  every 
whit  as  hard  a  saying  as  this,  that  his  vouchsafement  of 
circumcision  unto  them,  under  the  law,  was  no  argument 
or  sign  at  all  of  any  grace  or  favour  from  him  unto  them. 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 


51 


Yea,  2.  That  God  more  regarded,  and  made  more  li- 
beral provision  for  the  comfort  and  satisfaction  of  typical 
believers,  though  formal  and  express  unbelievers,  in  and 
about  the  spiritual  condition  of  their  children,  under  the 
law,  than  he  does  for  the  truest,  soundest,  and  greatest 
believers,  under  the  gospel ;  or,  which  is  of  a  like  noto- 
rious import,  that  the  ordinance  of  God  for  the  circum- 
cising of  infants  under  the  law,  was  of  no  accommodation 
or  concernment  for  the  comfort  of  the  parents,  touching 
the  spiritual  condition  of  their  children. 

3.  That  the  children  of  true  believers  under  the  gos- 
pel, are  more  unworthy,  more  unmeet,  less  capable  -  sub- 
jects of  baptism,  than  the  children  of  the  Jews  were  of  cir- 
cumcision under  the  law ;  or,  which  is  of  like  uncouth  no- 
tion, that  God  accepted  the  persons  of  the  children  of  the 
Jews,  though  unbelievers,  and  rejects  the  persons  of  the 
children  of  believers  under  the  gospel,  from  the  same  or 
the  like  grace,  these  being  under  no  greater  guilt  or  de- 
merit than  those  other. 

4.  That  baptism  succeedeth  not  in  the  place,  office,  or 
service  of  circumcision. 

5.  That  when  the  initiatory  sacrament  was  more  grievous 
and  burdensome,  in  the  letter  of  it,  God  ordered  the  ap- 
plication of  it  unto  children ;  but  after  he  made  a  change 
of  it  for  that  which  is  more  gracious,  and  much  more  ac- 
commodate to  the  tenderness  and  weakness  of  children, 
as  baptism  clearly  is,  in  respect  of  circumcision,  he  hath 
wholly  excluded  children  from  it. 

6.  That  it  was  better  and  more  edifying  unto  men  un- 
der the  law,  to  receive  the  pledge  of  God's  fatherly  love 
and  care  over  them,  whilst  they  were  yet  children ;  and 
that  now  it  is  worse  and  less  edifying  to  men,  to  receive 
it  at  the  same  time,  and  better  and  more  edifying  unto 
them  to  receive  it  afterwards,  as,  viz.  when  they  come  to 
years  of  discretion. 

7.  That  men  are  wiser  and  more  providential  than  God, 
as,  viz.  in  debarring  or  keeping  children  from  baptism  for 
fear  of  such  and  such  inconveniences,  when  as  God  by  no 
law,  or  prohibition  of  his,  interposeth  against  their  bap- 


52 


SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM. 


tizing,  nor  yet  insisteth  upon,  or  mentioneth,  the  least  in 
convenience  any  ways  likely  to  come  upon  either  the  per- 
sons of  the  children  themselves,  nor  upon  the  churches  of 
Christ  hereby. 

8.  And,  lastly,  (to  pass  by  many  other  tenets  and  opi- 
nions, every  whit  as  exorbitant  from  the  truth,  and  as  un- 
tenable as  these,  which  yet  must  be  maintained  by  those 
who  suffer  their  judgments  to  be  encumbered  with  the 
error  of  antipedobaptism,  unless  they  will  say  and  unsay, 
deny  in  the  consequent  what  they  affirm  and  grant  in  the 
antecedent,)  and  that  which  is  more  than  what  hath  been 
said  yet :  they  must  upon  the  account  of  their  enthral- 
ment  under  the  said  error,  maintain  many  uncouth,  harsh, 
irrational,  venturous,  and  daring  interpretations  and  ex- 
positions of  many  texts  and  passages  of  Scripture,  and  par- 
ticularly of  these,  Gen.  xvii.  7 ;  1  Cor.  vii.  14 ;  Acts  ii. 
39  )  xvi.  15 ;  1  Cor.  i.  16 ;  x.  2 ; — besides  many  others, 
which  frequently  upon  occasion  are  argued  in  way  of  de- 
fense and  proof  of  the  lawfulness  of  infant  baptism.  Now 
as  the  Greek  epigram  maketh  it  the  highway  to  beggary 
to  have  many  bodies  to  feed  and  many  houses  to  build,  so 
may  it  truly  enough  be  said,  that  for  a  professor  of  Chris- 
tianity to  have  many  errors  to  maintain  and  many  rotten 
opinions  to  build  up,  is  the  next  way  to  bring  him  to  a 
morsel  of  bread,  not  only  in  his  name  and  reputation 
amongst  intelligent  men,  but  also  in  the  goodness  of  his 
heart  and  conscience  towards  God.  Nor  is  it  of  much 
more  desirable  an  interpretation,  for  such  a  man  to  appear 
distracted  in  his  principles,  or  divided  in  himself/' 


ADMINISTRATOR  OF  BAPTISM. 


53 


CHAPTER  IV. 

ADMINISTRATOR  OF  BAPTISM. 

SECTION  I. — DONATIST,  PURITAN,  AND  ANABAPTIST 
EXTREMES. 

The  question  has  been  agitated,  Is  the  administrator 
of  baptism  to  be  considered  an  essential  part  of  the  ordi- 
nance— is  it  null  and  void  if  performed  by  any  other  than 
a  duly-accredited  minister  of  the  Word? 

Tertullian  decided  that  the  performance  of  baptism  was 
to  be  restricted  to  the  bishop — summits  sacerdos,  qui  est 
episcopus — but  that,  by  his  permission,  presbyters  and 
deacons  may  administer  the  ordinance,  and  even  laymen, 
in  cases  of  necessity — but  not  women.  He  considered  the 
baptism  of  heretics  null  and  void,  and  that  those  who  re- 
ceived it  ought  to  be  rebaptized. 

Agrippinus,  who  had  received  heretics'  baptism,  sub- 
mitted to  rebaptization ;  and  Novatian  made  himself  some- 
what notorious  by  his  zeal  in  rebaptizing  heretics. 

Indeed,  Cyprian  and  the  African  clergy  generally  re- 
pudiated their  baptism,  and  repeated  the  ordinance  on  all 
who  had  received  it  and  wished  to  connect  themselves  with 
the  Catholic  Church.  They  considered  baptism  the  re- 
mission of  sins,  and  that  this  remission  could  be  given  by 
the  Church  alone,  and  that  heretics  were  no  part  of  the 
church  :  of  course,  on  these  premises,  their  duty  was 
patent. 

In  the  next  century,  when  Cecilian  was  ordained  Bishop 
of  Carthage,  many  of  the  people  were  so  scandalized  at 
the  appointment  of  a  tradilor, — that  is,  one  who  had  de- 
livered up  the  sacred  books  in  the  Dioclesian  persecution, 
rather  than  lay  down  his  life  in  defence  of  the  Gospel, — - 
that  they  elected  a  rival  bishop,  one  Majorinus,  whose  sue* 


54 


ADMINISTRATOR  OF  BAPTISM. 


cessor  was  Donatus,  from  whom  a  large  body  of  schisma- 
tics derived  their  name.  This  sect  was  distinguished  by 
great  strictness— in  particular,  in  not  allowing  any  one  to 
join  them  without  rebaptizing  him,  even  if  he  had  been 
baptized  by  a  Catholic  bishop.  Their  exclusiveness,  in 
this  respect,  was  reciprocated  by  some  of  the  Catholic 
clergy,  who  rebaptized  the  Donatists. 

The  Puritans  of  our  mother  country  contended  for  re- 
baptization  in  those  cases  where  the  ordinance  had  been 
administered  by  laymen  or  women.  Thus  the  famous 
Cartwright : 

u  Seeing  they  only  are  bidden  in  the  Scripture  to  ad- 
minister the  sacraments  which  are  bidden  to  preach 
the  word,  and  that  the  public  ministers  have  only  this 
charge  of  the  word;  and  seeing  that  the  administration  of 
both  these  are  so  linked  together  that  the  denial  of  license 
to  do  one  is  a  denial  to  do  the  other,  as  of  the  contrary 
part,  license  to  one  is  license  to  the  other;  considering 
also  that  to  minister  the  sacraments  is  an  honor  in  the 
church  which  none  can  take  unto  him  but  he  which  is 
called  unto  it  as  was  Aaron ;  and  further,  forasmuch  as 
the  baptizing  by  private  persons,  and  by  women  especially, 
confirmeth  the  dangerous  error  of  the  condemnation  of 
young  children  which  die  without  baptism ;  last  of  all, 
seeing  we  have  the  consent  of  the  godly  learned  of  all 
times  against  the  baptism  by  women,  and  of  the  reformed 
churches  now  against  the  baptism  by  private  men,  we  con- 
clude that  the  administration  of  this  sacrament  by  pri- 
vate persons,  and  especially  by  women,  is  merely  both 
unlawful  and  void." 

The  Directory  of  the  Westminster  Assembly  forbids 
baptism  "  to  be  administered  in  any  case  by  any  private 
person."  The  Puritans  generally  repudiated  the  baptism 
administered  by  heretics,  and,  in  particular,  papists. 

In  this  they  are  followed  by  the  General  Assembly  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States.  They 
contend  that  the  Romish  communion  is  no  church,  but 
antichrist — therefore,  its  priests  are  no  ministers  of  Christ 
and  stewards  of  the  mysteries  of  God — they  cannot  of 


DONATIST  AND  OTHER  EXTREMES.  5'J 


course  perform  any  ministerial  act — their  baptisms  are 
consequently  null  and  void.  Some  of  the  Presbyterian 
divines  contend,  that  were  Romish  priests  gospel  minis- 
ters, their  baptisms  would  be  vitiated  by  the  adulteration 
of  the  element  with  oil,  salt,  spittle,  etc.,  as  well  as  the 
superstitions  and  idolatrous  additions  to  the  evangelical 
form.  Other  Presbyterians,  however,  consider  this  opinion 
somewhat  extreme. 

The  Anabaptists  defend  the  practice  of  the  Donatista 
upon  a  somewhat  peculiar  basis.  As  they  assert  that  there 
is  no  baptism  at  all,  unless  there  be  an  immersiori  of  a 
believer,  and  as  all  the  Reformers  had  been  baptized  by 
affusion,  in  their  infancy,  the  Anabaptists,  who  arose  at 
the  time  of  the  Reformation,  were  obliged,  as  their  name 
indicates,  to  rebaptize  themselves,  or  one  another.  On 
their  principles,  those  who  took  the  initiative  in  this  in- 
novation, were  neither  ministers  nor  Christians  at  all,  in 
the  formal  sense — as  no  one  is  formally,  externally,  a 
Christian,  until  he  is  baptized. 

It  was  some  years  after  Munzer  had  been  pastor  of  a 
Reformed  church,  that  he  broached  the  Anabaptist  prin- 
ciple. And  Blaurock  had  been  a  monk  before  he  pro- 
claimed "  the  beginning  of  the  baptism  of  the  Lord," — 
which  language  shows  that  he  rebaptized  himself,  or 
caused  himself  to  be  rebaptized  by  one  who  had  not  been 
immersed  as  a  believer ;  or  else,  like  another  apostle,  con- 
sidered himself  clothed  with  a  dispensation  to  immerse 
others,  without  b'eing  bound  to  be  immersed  himself,  in 
default  of  a  proper  administrator. 

The  first  of  these  alternatives  was  adopted  by  one 
Smith,  a  Brownist  exile  in  Holland.  On  embracing  the 
Anabaptist  principle,  he  left  his  brethren  at  Amsterdam, 
and  settled  with  his  disciples  at  Ley.  Not  being  able  to 
find  an  immersed  believer  to  immerse  him,  he  immersed 
himself,  and  was  hence  called  a  Se-haptist.  He  then  im- 
mersed his  disciples. 

.  The  second  alternative  was  adopted  by  Roger  Williams, 
who  introduced  Anabaptism  into  this  country.  He  first 
caused  himself  to  be  dipped  by  one  who  had  never  been 


56 


ADMINISTRATOR  OF  BAPTISM. 


dipped  himself,  and  then,  as  one  good  turn  deserves  ano- 
ther, Roger  turned  around  and  dipped  his  friend.  This 
was  in  1639,  about  the  same  time  that  the  first  Anabap- 
tist church  was  organized,  by  a  similar  process,  in  Eng- 
land. The  English  Anabaptists,  known  by  the  name  of 
"  particular  Baptists/'  u  were  strict  Calvinists,"  according 
to  Neal,  "  and  were  so  called  from  their  belief  of  the  doc- 
trines of  particular  election,  redemption,  etc.  They  sepa- 
rated from  the  Independent  congregation  about  the  year 
1638,  and  set  up  for  themselves  under  the  pastoral  care  of 
Mr.  Jesse;  and  having  renounced  their  former  baptism, 
they  sent  over  one  of  their  number,  Mr.  Blunt,  to  be  im- 
mersed by  one  of  the  Dutch  Anabaptists  of  Amsterdam, 
that  he  might  be  qualified  to  baptize  his  friends  in  Eng- 
land after  the  same  manner.  A  strange  and  unaccount- 
able conduct,"  says  Neal,  "  for  unless  the  Dutch  Anabap- 
tists could  derive  their  pedigree  in  an  uninterrupted  line 
from  the  apostles,  the  first  reviver  of  this  usage  must  have 
been  unbaptized,  and  consequently  not  capable  of  com- 
municating the  ordinance  to  others.  Upon  Mr.  Blunt' s 
return,  he  baptized  Mr.  Blacklock,  a  teacher,  and  Mr. 
Blacklock  dipped  the  rest  of  the  society  to  the  number  of 
fifty-three,  in  this  present  year,  1644."  This  was  the 
rise  of  the  Anabaptists  in  those  countries.  They  acted  upon 
the  legal  maxim,  Necessity  has  no  law ;  and  their  poste- 
rity approve  their  saying.  Some  of  them,  indeed,  affirm 
that  there  must  be,  and  there  has  been,  an  uninterrupted 
succession  of  immersers  from  John  the  Baptist.  But  the 
more  intelligent  and  less  adventurous,  being  mindful  of 
the  admonitory  cases  of  Williams,  Smith,  Blaurock,  and 
company,  and  the  absence  of  all  immersional  diptychs  be- 
fore the  sixteenth  century,  contend  that  as  there  has  been 
no  succession,  none  is  needed,  and  therefore  baptism  ad- 
ministered by  one  who  has  not  been  baptized  himself  is 
as  valid  as  any  other. 

This  question  is  blended  with  that  of  "  mixed  or  open 
communion,"  as  it  is  styled,  which  was  agitated  in  the  first 
Anabaptist  church  in  England.  "  A  difference,"  says 
Dr.  Toulmin,  "  arose  between  them  about  permitting  an 


DONATIST  AND  OTHER  EXTREMES. 


57 


individual  to  preach  to  them  who  had  not  been  initiated 
into  the  Christian  church  by  immersion,  as  if  the  conscien- 
tious omission  on  one  side  of  a  rite  considered  as  an  insti- 
tution of  Christ  by  the  other  party  could  vitiate  the  func- 
tions of  the  minister,  or  as  if  a  mutual  indulgence  to  the 
dictates  of  conscience  could  be  a  criminal  connivance  at 
error." 

Mr.  Jesse  himself  adopted  the  liberal  side  of  the  con- 
troversy.  "The  Lord/'  says  he,  "hath  suffered  some 
ordinances  to  be  omitted  and  lost  in  the  Old  Testament, 
and  yet  owned  the  church.  Though  circumcision  were 
omitted  in  the  wilderness,  yet  he  owned  them  to  be  his 
church,  and  many  of  the  ordinances  were  lost  in  the  cap- 
tivity— yet  he  owns  the  second  temple,  though  short  of 
the  first,  and  filled  it  with  his  glory,  and  honoured  it  with 
his  Son,  being  a  member  and  a  minister  therein.  1  The 
Lord  whom  you  seek  will  suddenly  come  to  his  temple/ 
So  in  the  New  Testament,  since  their  wilderness  condi- 
tion, and  great  and  long  captivity,  there  is  some  darkness 
and  doubts,  and  want  of  light  in  the  best  of  the  Lord's 
people,  in  many  of  his  ordinances,  and  that  for  several 
ages ;  and  yet  how  hath  the  Lord  owned  them  for  his 
churches  wherein  he  is  to  have  glory  and  praise  through- 
out all  ages/' 

John  Bunj^an  follows  in  the  same  vein,  scandalized  at 
what  he  considered  a  schismatical  dogma.  "  See  here/' 
exclaims  honest  J ohn,  "  see  here  the  spirit  of  these  men, 
who,  for  the  want  of  water  baptism,  [he  means  immersion^ 
have  at  once  unchurched  all  such  congregations  of  God  in 
the  world."  "  What  say  you  to  the  church  all  along  the 
Revelation,  quite  through  the  reign  of  antichrist?  Was 
that  a  New  Testament  church  or  no  ?"  "  And  are  there 
no  public  Christians,  or  public  Christian  meetings,  but 
them  of  your  way?  I  did  not  think  that  all  but  Baptists 
should  only  abide  in  holes." 

The  majority  of  that  communion,  it  is  believed,  at  the 
present  time,  sanction  the  immersions  administered  to 
believers  by  those  who  have  not  been  immersed  themselves, 
though  they  consider  baptism  by  affusion,  by  whomsoever 
3* 


58  ADMINISTRATOR  OF  BAPTISM. 


administered,  null  and  void.  Their  views  are  lucidly  ox- 
pressed  in  the  following  paragraph  from  the  pen  of  one  of 
their  most  distinguished  divines.  Dr.  Wayland,  on  being 
interrogated  on  the  subject,  says  : — 

"  1  have  not  the  shadow  of  doubt  in  regard  to  the  ques- 
tion of  which  you  write.  The  only  command  is  to  be 
baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the 
Holy  Ghost :  that  is,  as  I  suppose,  in  baptism  (that  is 
immersion)  to  profess  to  submit  ourselves  in  all  things  to 
God.  It  is  the  outward  manifestation  of  what  we  have 
done  before,  in  the  recesses  of  a  contrite  heart.  This  is 
the  whole  of  the  command.  There  is  no  direction  given 
beyond,  nor  have  we  a  right  to  make  any.  It  is  conve- 
nient as  a  matter  of  church  order,  that  there  should  be 
some  general  rule,  and  that  this  rite  be  administered  by 
a  clergyman,  and  it  would  be  naturally  performed  by  one 
who  had  been  himself  baptized  by  immersion.  But  if 
these  things  be  absent  from  necessity  or  ignorance  they 
alter  not  the  fact,  that  the  person  who  has  been  immersed 
on  profession  of  faith,  is,  as  I  understand  it,  a  baptized 
believer.  This  is  a  very  common  case  with  us  in  this  city. 
Congregationalists,  Episcopalians,  and  Methodists,  here, 
quite  frequently  baptize  persons  on  professions  of  their 
faith.  We  consider  them  as  baptized  believers,  and  when 
they  request  it,  admit  them  upon  a  simple  relation  of  their 
experience.  Indeed,  were  not  this  admitted,  I  know  not 
to  what  absurdities  we  should  be  reduced.  If  the  obe- 
dience of  Christ  depends  upon  the  ordinance  being  admi- 
nistered by  a  regular  baptized  administrator,  where  are  we 
to  stop,  and  how  shall  we  know  who  is  regularly  baptized; 
or  who  has  obeyed  Christ  ?  All  this  looks  to  me  absolutely 
trivial  and  wholly  aside  from  the  principles  which,  as  Pro- 
testants and  Baptists,  we  have  always  considered  essential 
to  Christian  liberty.  It  seems  to  me  like  assuming  Pusey- 
ism  under  another  name ;  or,  in  fact,  going  back  to  the 
elements  of  the  Catholic  church.  Such  are  my  views. 
How  they  meet  the  views  of  others  I  know  not,  but  to 
me  these  principles  of  Christian  freedom  are  above  all 
price.    It  is  time  that  we,  above  all  others,  should  1  walk 


PATRISTIC  AND  OTHER  EXTREMES. 


59 


in  the  liberty  wherewith  Christ  has  made  us  free,  and  not 
be  entangled  with  any  yoke  of  bondage.'  n 


SECTION  H. — PATRISTIC,  ROMISH,  AND  PROTESTANT 
EXTREMES. 

The  great  body  of  the  Catholic  church,  in  primitive 
times,  admitted  the  validity  of  baptism  performed  by 
heretics,  provided  it  was  sincerely  administered,  the  form, 
element,  and  subject  being  lawful — as  also  that  which  was 
administered  by  clergymen  whose  lives  were  impure.  But 
it  did  not  stop  here ;  for  it  authorized  laymen  also  to  bap- 
tize in  cases  of  emergency.  This  was  done  by  the  council 
of  Eliberis,  in  the  fourth  century.  In  the  previous  cen- 
tury the  bishop  and  church  of  Rome  endorsed  the  baptism 
of  Novatian,  who  was  baptized  in  his  sick-bed  by  an  ex- 
orcist, a  layman. 

It  does  not  appear  that  women  were  allowed  to  admi- 
nister baptism  under  any  circumstances,  until  the  eleventh 
century,  when  they  were  authorized  to  baptize  in  cases  of 
necessity,  by  a  decree  of  Pope  Urban  II.  In  the  year 
1250,  Pope  Innocent  I.  decreed  that  all  baptisms,  provided 
the  intention,  subject,  form,  and  element  were  proper, 
should  be  considered  valid — except  in  cases  where  persons 
baptized  themselves.  Rebaptization  was  absolutely  for- 
bidden as  sacrilegious.  Afterwards  it  became  common, 
in  the  Romish  church,  for  the  bishop  to  authorize  mid- 
wives  by  a  formal  license  to  administer  baptism  to  infants, 
in  cases  of  necessity. 

Luther  and  the  other  Reformers,  though  they  considered 
the  Romish  church  antichrist  and  an  awfully  corrupt  and 
heretical  communion,  yet  they  did  not  repudiate  its  ordi- 
nations or  its  baptisms.  Not  one  of  them  submitted  to 
reordination  or  rebaptism  ;  nor  did  they  rebaptize  any  who 
abandoned  Rome  to  join  the  Reformation.  Some  of  the 
Bohemians  had  set  them  a  Donatistic  example,  but  they 
were  not  disposed  to  follow  it.  They  felt  perhaps  the  di- 
lemma which  the  wily  Bossuet  did  not  forget  to  parade  in 


60 


ADMINISTRATOR  OF  BAPTISM. 


his  Variations,  (xi.  176.)  Speaking  of  the  Bohemians, 
he  says : — 

"  Camerarius  acknowledges  their  extreme  ignorance, 
but  says  what  he  can  in  excuse  thereof.  This  we  may 
hold  for  certain,  that  God  wrought  no  miracles  to  en- 
lighten them.  So  many  ages  after  the  question  of  rebap- 
tizing  heretics  had  been  determined  by  the  unanimous 
consent  of  the  whole  church,  they  were  so  ignorant  as  to  re- 
baptize  'all  those  that  came  to  them  from  other  churches/ 
They  persisted  in  this  error  for  the  space  of  a  hundred 
years,  as  they  own  in  all  their  writings,  and  confess  in  the 
Preface  of  1558,  that  it  was  but  a  little  while  since  they 
were  undeceived.  This  error  ought  not  to  be  deemed  of 
trivial  importance,  since  it  amounted  to  this,  that  Baptism 
was  lost  in  the  universal  church,  and  remained  only 
amongst  them.  Thus  presumptuous  in  their  notions  were 
two  or  three  thousand  men,  who  had  more  or  less  equally 
revolted  against  the  Calixtins,  amongst  whom  they  had 
lived,  and  against  the  church  of  Home,  from  which  both 
of  them  had  divided  thirty  or  forty  years  before.  So  small 
a  parcel  of  another  parcel,  dismembered  so  few  years  from 
the  Catholic  church,  dared  to  rebaptize  the  remainder  of 
the  universe,  and  reduce  the  inheritance  of  Jesus  Christ  to 
a  corner  of  Bohemia  !  They  believed  themselves  there- 
fore the  only  Christians,  since  they  believed  that  they 
only  were  baptizect;  and  whatever  they  might  allege 
in  their  own  vindication,  their  rebaptization  condemned 
them.  All  they  had  to  answer  was,  if  they  rebaptized 
the  Catholics,  the  Catholics  also  rebaptized  them.  But 
it  is  well  enough  known,  that  the  Church  of  Borne 
never  rebaptized  any  that  had  been  baptized  by  any  per- 
son whatsoever,  '  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghost/  and  supposing  there  had  been,  in  Bohemia,  such 
very  ignorant  Catholics  as  not  to  know  so  notorious  a  thing, 
ought  not  they  who  called  themselves  their  Beformers  to 
know  better  ?  After  all,  how  came  it  to  pass  that  these 
new  rebaptizers  did  not  cause  themselves  to  be  rebaptized  ? 
If,  at  their  coming  into  the  world,  Baptism  had  ceased 
throughout  all  Christendom;  that  which  they  had  received 


PATRISTIC  AND  OTHER  EXTREMES 


61 


was  no  higher  in  value  than  that  of  their  neighbours,  and 
by  invalidating  the  baptism  of  those  by  whom  they  were 
baptized,  what  became  of  their  own  ?  They  were  then 
obliged  no  less  to  cause  themselves  to  be  rebaptized  than 
to  rebaptize  the  rest  of  the  universe ;  and  in  this  there 
was  but  one  inconveniency,  namely,  that,  according  to 
their  principles,  there  was  not  a  man  on  earth  that  could 
do  them  this  good  turn,  baptism  being  equally  null  what- 
ever side  it  came  from." 

By  endorsing  the  baptisms  of  Eome,  the  Reformers 
sanctioned  lay-baptisms.  Such  administrations  were  de- 
fended by  Luther,  on  a  basis  first  laid  down  by  Tertulliau. 
Recognizing  no  distinction  between  the  ministry  and  laity, 
as  of  divine  appointment,  the  great  Reformer  considered 
that  the  power  to  preach  and  administer  the  ordinances  in- 
heres in  the  church  at  large — all  the  members  being  alike 
qualified  to  exercise  ministerial  functions,  except  as  the 
power  may  be  limited,  by  mutual  consent,  to  one  or  more 
in  each  particular  church,  for  the  sake  of  order  and  deco- 
rum. His  views  are  thus  set  forth  in  an  "  Address  to  the 
German  Nobility  on  the  Reformation  of  Christianity  :" — 

"  I  maintain  that  we  were  all,  by  baptism,  consecrated 
priests,  as  St.  Peter  says  :  Ye  are  a  royal  priesthood  and  a 
priestly  or  holy  nation ;  and  in  the  Apocalypse  St.  John 
says  :  Thou  hast,  by  thy  blood,  made  us  kings  and  priests 
unto  our  God.  Hence,  if  there  were  no  higher  nor  bet- 
ter consecration  in  our  hearts  than  that  which  the  pope  or 
bishop  imparts,  no  one  could  ever  be  made  a  priest  by 
their  consecration,  how  often  soever  he  held  mass,  preach- 
ed, or  absolved.  The  consecration  imparted  by  a  bishop 
is  therefore  nothing  else  than  the  selecting  of  an  indivi- 
dual out  of  an  assembly,  all  the  members  of  which  have 
equal  power,  and  the  commanding  him  to  exercise  that 
power  in  the  name  of  and  for  the  rest.  Just  as  if  ten 
brothers,  sons  of  a  king  and  equal  heirs,  were  to  chooso 
one  of  their  number  to  administer  their  inheritance  for 
them.  Ail  these  sons  would  certainly  be  real  kings 
and  possessed,  of  equal  power,  and  yet  one  only  would  be 
the  administrator  of  their  common  power ;   and  that  I 


62 


ADMINISTRATOR  OF  BAPTISM. 


maj  illustrate  this  subject  still  more  clearly,  if  a  few  pious 
Christian  laymen  were  taken  and  banished  into  a  desert 
place,  and  if,  not  having  among  them  a  priest  consecrated 
by  a  bishop,  they  should  there  agree  to  choose  one  of 
their  own  number,  married  or  unmarried,  and  were  to 
command  him  to  baptize,  read  mass,  absolve,  and  preach, 
this  man  would  be  as  truly  a  priest  as  if  all  the  bishops 
and  popes  in  the  world  had  consecrated  him.  The  primi- 
tive Christians  chose,  in  this  manner,  and  from  among  the 
mass  of  the  people,  their  priests  and  bishops,  who  were 
then  confirmed  in  their  office  by  other  bishops,  without 
that  display  and  pomp  so  very  prevalent  at  present  on 
such  occasions.  It  was  in  this  way  that  Augustin,  Am- 
brose, and  Cyprian  were  made  bishops.  Since  then  the 
laity  also,  as  well  as  the  priesthood,  have  received  baptism, 
have  the  same  faith  and  gospel,  we  must  allow  them  to 
be  priests  and  bishops,  and  regard  their  office  as  an  office 
that  belongs  to  and  is  useful  in  the  Christian  church ) 
for  every  one  that  has  received  baptism  may  boast  that  he 
is  already  a  consecrated  priest,  bishop,  and  pope.  But 
although  we  are  all  equally  priests,  it  does  nevertheless 
not  become  every  one  to  exercise  the  priest's  office,  nor 
to  obtrude  himself  and  assume  to  do,  without  our  consent 
and  command,  that  which  we  all  have  equal  power  to  do  \ 
for  that  which  is  common  to  all  no  one  has  a  right  to  ar- 
rogate to  himself  without  the  wish  and  command  of  all." 

It  seems  almost  impossible  for  any  one  to  read  the  fore- 
going extract  without  being  struck  with  the  inconclusive- 
ness  of  the  Reformer's  reasoning,  the  irrelevancy  of  his 
proofs,  the  incongruity  of  his  illustrations,  and  the  un- 
scriptural  and  degraded  character  which  he  assigns  to  the 
Gospel  ministry.  How  strange  that  he  should  make  all 
Christians,  priests  and  prelates,  in  an  ecclesiastical  sense, 
because,  forsooth,  the  Scriptures  make  them,  in  a  mystical 
sense,  kings  and  priests  unto  Grod  !  Strange  too,  that  he 
should  see  no  difference  between  priests  and  prelates  of 
man's  creation  and  the  "  pastors  and  teachers"  who  are 
given  to  the  church  by  its  exalted  Head — no  difference  be- 
tween ecclesiastical  agents,  of  mere  human  appointment^ 


VIA  MEDIA. 


63 


and  the  elders  who  are  made  overseers  of  the  flock  of  God 
by  no  less  authority  than  that  of  the  Holy  Ghost !  How 
completely  did  Luther  ignore  a  Divine  call  to  the  minis- 
try !  And  what  pernicious  consequences  have  resulted 
from  this  error,  among  his  ecclesiastical  posterity,  in  the 
land  which  gave  birth  to  the  Keformation  ! 

It  is  worthy  of  remark  that  Luther's  views  on  this  sub- 
ject have  been  revived  in  our  own  country  by  Alexander 
Campbell  and  his  followers,  who  consider  every  one  that 
has  been  baptized — though  they  limit  the  mode  to  plung- 
ing— empowered  to  baptize  others.  Whether  or  not  they 
are  aware  that  they  have  so  respectable  authority  for  their 
opinion  as  that  of  the  great  Reformer;  and  whether  or  not 
they  extend  the  right  of  baptizing  to  females,  who  cannot 
be  consistently  excluded  on  Luther's  platform — are  ques- 
tions with  which  we  are  not  concerned )  nor  are  we  called 
upon  to  do  more  than  suggest  that  the  foregoing  principles 
are  logically  embraced  in  the  Congregational  or  Inde- 
pendent system,  though  they  are  rarely  avowed  by  the 
divines  of  that  school. 

Luther,  we  presume,  derived  his  extravagant  opinion 
from  Tertullian.  That  great  innovator  introduces  it  as  the 
basis  of  an  argument  against  second  marriages,  in  his  "  Ex- 
hortations to  Chastity."  Assuming  that  St.  Paul,  in  en- 
joining that  a  bishop  must  be  the  husband  of  one  wife, 
meant  that  he  must  not  be  married  but  once,  Tertullian 
attempts  to  make  capital  out  of  this  false  interpretation, 
in  support  of  his  ascetic  doctrine  that  no  Christian  must 
be  married  more  than  once.  To  gain  this  point,  he  asserts 
that  the  difference  between  the  clergy  and  laity — ordinem 
et  plebem — is  not  of  divine,  but  of  ecclesiastical  authority : 
so  that  where  no  clergyman  is  present,  a  layman  may  cele- 
brate the  Lord's  Supper  and  baptize — offers  et  Unguis. 
Where  three  are,  even  of  the  laity,  there  is  a  church.  If 
therefore,  he  argues,  the  laity  have  priestly  rights,  they 
must  be  subject  to  priestly  obligations.  What,  exclaims 
the  enthusiast,  shall  one  who  has  been  married  twice,  per- 
form priestly  offices  ?  Digamus  Unguis  ?  Digamws  of- 
fen?    To  prove  that  there  is  no  scriptural  distinction 


64 


ADMINISTRATOR  OF  BAPTISM. 


between  che  clergy  and  laity,  he  cites  the  following  pas- 
sages :  "  He  hath  made  us  kings  and  priests  unto  God  and 
his  Father/'  "  Every  one  lives  by  his  faith."  "  Grod  is 
no  accepter  of  persons."  "  Not  the  hearers  of  the  law  are 
justified,  but  the  doers."  Marvellously  pertinent  proofs  ! 
They  are  in  admirable  keeping,  however,  with  his  fanati- 
cal position  and  fallacious  reasoning. —  Vide  De  Ex. 
Cast.  c.  vii.  We  scarcely  need  say,  that  on  other  occa- 
sions, he  magnifies  the  office  of  the  ministry,  without  stint, 
allowing  nothing  to  be  done  without  the  permission  of  the 
chief  priest,  as  he  judaically  styles  the  bishop. 


SECTION  III. — VIA  MEDIA. 

The  British  Reformers  fell  upon  a  middle  course  in  re- 
ference to  this  vexed  question.  They  could  not,  as  they 
thought,  consistently  repudiate  the  baptisms  of  Rome,  and 
therefore  they  sanctioned  those  irregular  administrations, 
so  far  as  to  admit  their  validity.  On  the  other  hand, 
they  could  not,  after  the  example  of  Rome,  authorize  and 
empower  the  laity  to  baptize,  as  they  could  not  find  that 
reason  or  Scripture  furnishes  any  warrant  for  this.  So 
they  forbade  the  laity  to  administer  the  ordinance,  but  at 
the  same  time  forbade  also  the  rebaptization  of  those  who 
had  received  lay-baptism. 

Women,  however,  continued  occasionally  to  baptize 
children  until  the  time  of  James  I. — especially  midwives, 
who  exercised  their  profession  under  oath  and  by  license 
of  the  bishops.  The  oath  is  somewhat  of  a  curiosity. 
After  binding  them  to  exercise  their  office  "  faithfully  and 
diligently,"  it  proceeds:  "Also  that  in  the  ministration 
of  the  sacrament  of  baptism,  in  the  time  of  necessity,  I 
will  use  the  accustomed  words  of  the  same  sacrament: 
that  is  to  say,  these  words  following,  or  to  the  like  effect, 
'  I  christen  thee  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and 
the  Holy  Ghost/  and  none  other  profane  words.  And 
that,  in  baptizing  any  infant  born,  and  pouring  water  on 
the  head  of  the  said  infant,  I  will  use  pure  and  clear 


VIA  MEDIA. 


65 


water,  and  not  any  rose  or  damask  water,  or  water  made 
of  any  confection  or  mixture.  And  that  I  will  certify  the 
curate  of  the  parish  church  of  every  such  baptizing." 

When  king  James  excepted  to  women's  baptisms,  at  the 
Hampton  Court  Conference,  some  of  the  divines  defended 
it  as  a  reasonable  practice,  "  the  minister  not  being  of  the 
essence  of  the  sacrament/'  Archbishop  Whitgift,  how- 
ever, notwithstanding  the  midwife's  oath,  assured  the  king 
that  baptism  by  women  and  lay  persons  was  not  allowed 
by  the  Church  of  England. 

Lord  Bacon,  in  his  "  Considerations  touching  the  Paci- 
fication of  the  Church/'  observes  :  "  For  private  baptism 
by  women,  or  lay  persons,  the  best  divines  do  utterly  con- 
demn it;  and  I  hear  it  not  generally  defended;  and  I 
have  often  marvelled  that  where  the  book  in  the  preface 
to  public  baptism  doth  acknowledge  that  baptism  in  the 
practice  of  the  primitive  church,  was  anniversary,  and  but 
at  certain  times,  which  showeth  that  the  primitive  church 
did  not  attribute  so  much  to  the  ceremony,  as  they  would 
break  an  outward  and  general  order  for  it,  the  book 
should  afterwards  allow  of  private  baptism,  as  if  the  cere- 
mony were  of  that  necessity,  as  the  very  institution,  which 
committeth  baptism  only  to  the  ministers,  should  be 
broken  in  regard  of  the  supposed  necessity.  And,  there- 
fore, this  point  of  all  others  I  think  was  but  a  Concessum 
propter  duritiem  cordis."  It  is  marvellous  that  his  lord- 
ship should  not  have  known,  that  the  same  hardness  of 
heart  and  the  same  concession  because  of  it  obtained  in 
the  primitive  church,  by  whose  example  the  fathers  of  the 
English  Establishment  defended  themselves  in  allowing 
private  baptisms  in  cases  of  necessity,  and  in  not  rebap- 
tizing  those  who  had  been  baptized  by  laymen. 

"  Concerning  c  permitting  the  administration  of  baptism 
in  this  light  of  the  Gospel  to  women/  be  it  spoken  with 
the  reverence  of  our  brethren,"  says  Bridges,  "  it  is  most 
untrue.  When  as  it  is  not  only  given  customarily  in  the 
open  charge  of  every  visitation,  whether  any  such  thing  be 
done  by  them,  as  in  the  time  of  the  popish  darkness  was 
used ;  but  also  if  any  such  thing  have  happened,  and  be 


66 


ADMINISTRATOR  OF  BAPTISM. 


found  out,  the  parties  that  so  have  done  are  openly  pu« 
nished  for  the  same." 

"As  touching  the  baptism  by  midwives,"  says  Bishop 
Cooper,  "  I  can  assure  you  that  the  Church  of  England, 
or  any  that  I  know  of  in  place  of  government  thereof, 
doth  not  maintain  either  the  baptism  of  midwives  as  a 
thing  tolerable  in  the  church,  or  else  the  condemnation 
of  those  children  that  depart  this  world  unbaptized,  but 
doth  account  them  both  erroneous,  and  not  according  to 
the  word  of  God.  For  in  the  Convocation  the  matter  was 
debated  amongst  us,  wherein  some  of  those  persons  were 
present  to  whom  the  drawing  of  the  book  was  permitted, 
who  protested  that  neither  the  order  of  the  book  did  allow 
any  such  thing,  neither  that  it  was  any  part  of  their  mean- 
ing to  approve  the  same.  But  for  so  much  as  baptizing 
by  women  hath  been  aforetime  commonly  used,  and  now 
also  of  rashness  by  some  is  done,  the  book  only  taketh 
order  and  provideth,  that  if  the  child  be  baptized  by  the 
midwife,  rebaptizing  be  not  admitted." 

This  via  media  is  eloquently  defended  by  Hooker — 
JEccl.  Pol.  v.  Ixii. — "  It  behooveth  generally  all  sorts  of 
men  to  keep  themselves  within  the  limits  of  their  own 
vocation.  And  seeing  God,  from  whom  men's  several 
degrees  and  pre-eminences  do  proceed,  hath  appointed 
them  in  his  church,  at  whose  hands  his  pleasure  is  that  we 
should  receive  both  baptism  and  all  other  public  medici- 
nable  helps  of  soul,  perhaps  thereby  the  more  to  settle 
our  hearts  in  the  love  of  our  ghostly  superiors,  they  have 
small  cause  to  hope  that  with  him  their  voluntary  ser- 
vices will  be  accepted  who  thrust  themselves  into  func- 
tions either  above  their  capacity  or  besides  their  place, 
and  over  boldly  intermeddle  with  duties  whereof  no  charge 
was  ever  given  them.  They  that  in  any  thing  exceed  the 
compass  of  their  own  order  do  as  much  as  in  them  lieth 
to  dissolve  that  order  which  is  the  harmony  of  God's 
church. 

"  Suppose  therefore  that  in  these  and  the  like  consider- 
ations the  law  did  utterly  prohibit  baptism  to  be  adminis- 
tered by  any  other  than  persons  thereunto  solemnly  con- 


VIA  MEDIA. 


67 


secrated,  what  necessity  soever  happen  :  are  not  many 
things  firm  being  done,  although  in  part  done  otherwise 
than  positive  rigor  and  strictness  did  require  ?  Nature 
as  much  as  possible  inclineth  unto  validities  and  preserva- 
tions. Dissolutions  and  nullities  of  things  done,  are  not 
only  not  favored,  but  hated  when  either  urged  without 
cause,  or  extended  beyond  their  reach.  If  therefore  at 
any  time  it  come  to  pass  that  in  teaching  publicly  or  pri- 
vately in  delivering  this  blessed  sacrament  of  regeneration, 
some  unsanctified  hand,  contrary  to  Christ's  supposed  ordi- 
nance do  intrude  itself,  to  execute  that  whereunto  the 
laws  of  God  and  his  church  have  deputed  others,  which 
of  these  two  opinions  seemeth  more  agreeable  with  equity, 
ours  that  disallow  what  is  done  amiss,  yet  make  not  the 
force  of  the  word  and  sacraments,  much  less  their  nature 
and  very  substance,  to  depend  on  the  minister's  authority 
and  calling,  or  else  theirs  which  defeat,  disannul,  and 
annihilate  both,  in  respect  of  that  one  only  personal  de- 
fect, there  being  not  any  law  of  God  which  saith  that  if 
the  minister  be  incompetent  his  word  shall  be  no  word, 
his  baptism  no  baptism  ?  He  which  teacheth  and  is  not 
sent  loseth  the  reward,  but  yet  retaineth  the  name,  of  a 
teacher  :  his  usurped  actions  have  in  him  the  same  nature 
which  they  have  in  others,  although  they  yield  him  not 
the  same  comfort.  And  if  these  two  cases  be  peers,  the 
case  of  doctrine  and  the  case  of  baptism  both  alike,  sith 
no  defect  in  their  vocation  that  teach  the  truth  is  able  to 
take  away  the  benefit  thereof  from  him  which  heareth, 
wherefore  should  the  want  of  a  lawful  calling  in  them  that 
baptize  make  baptism  to  be  vain  ?" 

And  again  :  "  The  sum  of  all  that  can  be  said  to  defeat 
such  baptism  is,  that  those  things  which  have  no  being 
can  work  nothing,  and  that  baptism  without  the  power  of 
ordination  is  as  judgment  without  sufficient  jurisdiction, 
void,  frustrate,  and  of  no  effect.  But  to  this  we  answer, 
that  the  fruit  of  baptism  dependeth  only  upon  the  cove- 
nant which  God  hath  made :  that  God  by  covenant 
requireth  in  the  elder  sort  faith  and  baptism,  in  children 
the  sacrament  of  baptism  alone,  whereunto  he  hath  also 


ADMINISTRATOR  OF  BAPTISM. 


given  them  right  by  special  privilege  of  birth  within  the 
bosom  of  the  holy  church  :  that  infants  therefore,  which 
have  received  baptism  complete  as  touching  the  mystical 
perfection  thereof,  are  by  virtue  of  his  own  covenant  and 
promise  cleansed  from  all  sin,  forasmuch  as  all  other  laws 
concerning  that  which  in  baptism  is  either  moral  or  eccle- 
siastical do  bind  the  church  which  giveth  baptism,  and 
not  the  infant  which  receiveth  it  of  the  church.  So  that 
if  any  thing  be  therein  amiss,  the  harm  which  groweth 
by  violation  of  holy  ordinances  must  altogether  rest 
where  the  bonds  of  such  ordinances  hold. 

u  For  that  in  actions  of  this  nature  it  fareth  not  as  in 
jurisdictions  may  somewhat  appear  by  the  very  opinion 
which  men  have  of  them.  The  nullity  of  that  which  a 
judge  doth  by  way  of  authority  without  authority,  is 
known  to  all  men,  and  agreed  upon  with  full  consent  of 
the  whole  world,  every  man  receiveth  it  as  a  general  edict 
of  nature ;  whereas  the  nullity  of  baptism  in  regard  of  the 
like  defect  is  only  a  few  men's  new,  ungrounded,  and  as 
yet  unapproved  imagination.  Which  difference  of  gene- 
rality in  men's  persuasions  on  the  one  side,  and  their 
paucity  whose  conceit  leadeth  them  the  other  way,  hath 
risen  from  a  difference  easy  to  observe  in  the  things  them- 
selves. The  exercise  of  unauthorized  jurisdiction  is  a 
grievance  unto  them  that  are  under  it,  whereas  they  that 
without  authority  presume  to  baptize,  offer  nothing  but 
that  which  to  all  men  is  good  and  acceptable.  Sacra- 
ments are  food,  and  the  ministers  thereof  as  parents  or  as 
nurses,  at  whose  hands  when  there  is  necessity  but  no 
possibility  of  receiving  it,  if  that  which  they  are  not 
;  present  to  do  in  right  of  their  office  be  of  pity  and  com- 
passion done  by  others,  shall  this  be  thought  to  turn 
celestial  bread  into  gravel,  or  the  medicine  of  souls  into 
poison  ? 

u  Jurisdiction  is  a  yoke  which  law  hath  imposed  on  the 
necks  of  men  in  such  sort  that  they  must  endure  it  for 
the  good  of  others,  how  contrary  soever  it  be  to  their  own 
particular  appetites  and  inclinations  :  jurisdiction  bridleth 
men  against  their  wills,  that  which  a  judge  doth  prevail 


VIA  MEDIA. 


69 


eth  by  virtue  of  his  very  power,  and  therefore  not  without 
great  reason,  except  the  law  have  given  him  authority, 
whatsoever  he  doth  vanisheth.  Baptism  on  the  other 
side  being  a  favor  which  it  pleaseth  God  to  bestow,  a 
benefit  of  soul  to  us  that  receive  it,  and  a  grace  which 
they  that  deliver  are  but  as  mere  vessels  either  appointed 
by  others  or  offered  of  their  own  accord  to  this  service : 
of  which  two  if  they  be  the  one  it  is  but  their  own  honor, 
their  own  offense  to  be  the  other  :  can  it  possibly  stand  with 
equity  and  right,  that  the  faultiness  of  their  presumption 
in  giving  baptism  should  be  able  to  prejudice  us,  who  by 
taking  baptism  have  no  way  offended  ?" 

With  Hookers  exaltation  of  the  virtue  and  necessity 
of  baptism  we  at  present  have  nothing  to  do.  In  pursuing 
his  reasoning  on  the  subject  of  non-ministerial  baptisms, 
he  endorses  the  argument  of  St.  Augustin,  who  in  his 
controversy  with  Parmenian  in  regard  to  the  validity  of 
heretics'  baptisms,  which  the  latter  repudiated,  argues 
from  the  analogy  of  lay  baptisms. 

Augustin  says  : — "  I  doubt  whether  any  pious  man  can 
say  that  the  baptism  administered  in  case  of  necessity,  by 
laymen,  should  be  repeated.  For  to  do  it  unnecessarily 
is  to  usurp  another  man's  office  :  if  necessity  urge,  it  is 
either  no  fault  at  all,  or  a  venial  one.  But  if  it  be  usurped, 
there  being  no  urgent  necessity,  and  any  man  that  pleases 
gives  baptism  to  any  that  choose  to  receive  it,  yet  being 
given,  it  cannot  be  said  that  it  has  not  been  given,  though 
we  may  truly  say,  it  has  not  been  given  lawfully.  A  peni- 
tent affection  must  remedy  the  unlawful  usurpation.  If 
this  be  not  thus  remedied,  it  shall  remain  to  the  hurt  of 
him  who  unlawfully  gave  or  of  him  who  unlawfully  re- 
ceived it;  but  it  cannot  be  so  reputed  as  if  it  had  not 
been  given. 

In  further  elucidation  of  the  subject,  Hooker  says : — 
"  The  grace  of  baptism  cometh  by  donation  from  God 


*  This  opinion  of  Augustin  agrees  with  the  maxim,  Factum  valet 
fieri  non  debuit.  It  ought  not  to  have  been  done,  but  being  done,  it 
is  valid. 


70 


ADMINISTRATOR  OF  BAPTISM. 


alone.  That  God  hath  committed  the  ministry  of  bap- 
tism unto  special  men,  it  is  for  order's  sake  in  his  church, 
and  not  to  the  end  that  their  authority  might  give  being, 
or  add  force  to  the  sacrament  itself.  That  infants  have 
right  to  the  sacrament  of  baptism  we  all  acknowledge. 
Charge  them  we  cannot  as  guileful  and  wrongful  posses- 
sors of  that  whereunto  they  have  right  by  the  manifest 
will  of  the  donor,  and  are  not  parties  unto  any  defect  or 
disorder  in  the  manner  of  receiving  the  same.  And  if 
any  such  disorder  be,  we  have  sufficiently  before  declared 
that  delictum  cum  capitc  semper  ambulat,  men's  own  faults 
are  their  own  harms. " 

He  illustrates  the  case  of  baptism  administered  by  wo- 
men, by  the  circumcision  performed  by  Zipporah,  which, 
though  irregular,  was  valid — and  thus  concludes  the  argu- 
ment : — 

"  These  premises  therefore  remaining  as  hitherto  they 
have  been  laid,  because  the  commandment  of  our  Saviour 
Christ,  which  committeth  jointly  to  public  ministers  both 
doctrine  and  baptism,  doth  no  more  by  linking  them  to- 
gether import  that  the  nature  of  the  sacrament  dependeth 
on  the  minister's  authority  and  power  to  preach  the  word 
than  the  force  and  virtue  of  the  word  doth  on  license  to 
give  the  sacrament ;  and  considering  that  the  work  of  ex- 
ternal ministry  in  baptism  is  only  a  pre-eminence  of  honor, 
which  they  that  take  to  themselves  and  are  not  thereunto 
called  as  Aaron  was,  do  but  themselves  in  their  own  per- 
sons by  means  of  such  usurpation  incur  the  just  blame 
of  disobedience  to  the  law  of  God  :  further  also,  inasmuch 
as  it  standeth  with  no  reason  that  errors  grounded  on  a 
wrong  interpretation  of  other  men's  deeds  should  make 
frustrate  whatsoever  is  misconceived,  and  that  baptism  by 
women  should  cease  to  be  baptism  as  oft  as  any  man  will 
thereby  gather  that  children  which  die  unbaptized  are 
damned,  which  opinion  if  the  act  of  baptism  administered 
in  such  manner  did  enforce,  it  might  be  sufficient  cause 
of  disliking  the  same,  but  none  of  defeating  or  making  it 
altogether  void  :  last  of  all,  whereas  general  and  full  con- 
sent of  the  godly  learned  in  all  ages  doth  make  for  valid* 


VIA  MEDIA. 


71 


ity  of  baptism,  yea  albeit  administered  in  private  and 
even  by  women,  which  kind  of  baptism  in  case  of  neces- 
sity divers  reformed  churches  do  both  allow  and  defend, 
some  others  which  do  not  defend  tolerate,  few  in  compari- 
son and  they  without  any  just  cause  do  utterly  disannul  and 
annihilate — surely,  howsoever,  through  defects  on  either 
side,  the  sacrament  may  be  without  fruit,  as  well  in  some 
cases  to  him  which  receiveth  as  to  him  which  giveth  it, 
yet  no  disability  of  either  part  can  so  far  make  it  frustrate 
and  without  effect  as  to  deprive  it  of  the  very  nature  of 
true  baptism,  having  all  things  else  which  the  ordinance 
of  Christ  requireth.  Whereupon  we  may  consequently 
infer  that  the  administration  of  this  sacrament  by  private 
persons,  be  it  lawful  or  unlawful,  appeareth  not  as  yet  to 
be  merely  void." 

This  conclusion,  together  with  the  general  course  of 
reasoning  pursued  by  Hooker  in  reaching  it,  is  favored  by 
the  generality  of  Protestants,  who  are  the  more  inclined 
to  it  from  the  fact,  that  nearly  all  condemn  rebaptism  as 
sacrilegious.* 

This  much  may  be  said  in  addition  to  the  foregoing, 
and  in  corroboration  of  it. 

First :  There  is  no  precept  or  precedent  in  the  Scrip- 
tures for  lay-baptism — therefore,  the  church  has  good 
reason  not  to  empower  the  laity  to  baptize. 

That  the  administration  of  baptism  is  a  function  of  the 
ministerial  office  appears  from  the  Commission,  Matt, 
xxviii.  16-20  :  "  Then  the  eleven  disciples  went  away  into 
Galilee,  into  a  mountain  where  Jesus  had  appointed  them. 
And  when  they  saw  him,  they  worshipped  him ;  but  some 
doubted.  And  Jesus  came  and  spake  unto  them,  saying, 
All  power  is  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  in  earth. 


*  The  text  frequently  adduced  in  opposition  to  rebaptism  is  Eph. 
iv.  5  :  "  One  baptism."  This,  however,  does  not  yield  the  support  for 
which  it  is  cited.  There  is  but  one  Lord's  Supper,  yet  every  Christian 
is  bound  to  repeat  its  reception.  The  nature  and  design  of  baptism,  as 
the  initiatory  ordinance  of  Christianity,  and  the  analogy  which  it  bears 
to  circumcision,  show  that  it  is  not  to  be  repeated  on  any  one  who  has 
received  it.    No  interdict  more  explicit  is  needed. 


ADMINISTRATOR  OF  BAPTISM. 


Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in 
the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost :  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I 
have  commanded  you;  and,  lo,  I  am  with  you  always, 
even  unto  the  end  of  the  world."  In  this  passage,  the 
administration  of  baptism  is  placed  on  the  same  basib 
with  that  other  exclusively  ministerial  work — the  preach- 
ing of  the  gospel. 

And  from  1  Cor.  i.  12-17,  it  seems  that  this  was  not 
only  considered  the  function  of  a  minister,  but  ordinarily 
it  was  exercised  on  the  subject  by  the  minister  who  was 
instrumental  in  his  conversion ;  for  St.  Paul  instances 
his  own  contrary  course  as  an  exception,  for  which  he  as- 
signs a  noble  reason.  He  was  the  great  apostle  of  the 
Gentiles.  His  name  was  great,  and  there  was  danger  that 
some  of  his  converts,  if  he  was  very  ostensibly  instru- 
mental in  their  introduction  to  the  visible  fellowship  of 
the  church,  would  substitute  him  in  the  place  of  his  infi- 
nitely greater  Master.  His  language  is,  "  Now  this  I 
say,  that  every  one  of  you  saith,  I  am  of  Paul;  and  I  of 
Apollos ;  and  I  of  Cephas ;  and  I  of  Christ.  Is  Christ 
divided  ?  Was  Paul  crucified  for  you  ?  or  were  ye  bap- 
tized in  the  name  of  Paul  ?  I  thank  God  that  I  baptized 
none  of  you  but  Crispus  and  Gaius ;  lest  any  should  say 
that  I  had  baptized  in  mine  own  name.  And  I  baptized 
also  the  household  of  Stephanas :  besides,  I  know  not 
whether  I  baptized  any  other.  For  Christ  sent  me  not 
to  baptize,  but  to  preach  the  gospel,  not  with  wisdom 
of  words,  lest  the  cross  of  Christ  should  be  without  ef- 
fect." His  own  statement  shows  that  Christ  did  not  for- 
bid his  baptizing  at  all,  while  his  partial  exception  proves 
the  general  rule  that  ministers  baptized  their  own  converts. 
As  Paul  was  always  associated  with  elders  or  evangelists, 
he  could  employ  them  to  baptize  his  numerous  catechu- 
mens. And,  as  there  is  no  text  in  the  New  Testament 
in  which  the  authority  to  baptize  is  communicated  to  the 
laity,  the  church  is  warranted  in  considering  it  one  of 
the  exclusive  functions  of  the  mwiistry. 

The  case  of  Ananias,  who  baptized  Saul,  Acts  ix.  10-18, 


VIA  MEDIA. 


73 


does  not  militate  with  this.  Indeed,  it  is  not  said  that 
Ananias  was  the  administrator.  It  is  merely  stated  that 
he  delivered  the  message  to  Saul,  and  instructed  him  to 
receive  baptism,  and  he  accordingly  "  arose  and  was  bap- 
tized." It  is  likely,  however,  that  Ananias  administered 
the  ordinance,  and  that  he  was  empowered  so  to  do,  as  an 
elder  of  the  church  at  Damascus.  He  possessed  just  such 
a  character  as  an  elder  should  possess,  according  to  the 
apostolic  canons,  1  Tim.  iii.  1-7 ;  Titus  i.  5-9,  especially 
this :  "  He  must  have  a  good  report  from  them  that  are 
without/'  for  St.  Paul  witnesses  concerning  him,  that  he 
was  "  a  devout  man,  according  to  the  law,  having  a  good 
report  of  all  the  Jews  which  dwelt  there."  Acts  xxii. 
12 — the  very  man  to  be  made  an  elder  in  the  church. 
The  mission,  too,  with  which  he  was  charged  in  the  di- 
vine vision  was  scarcely  compatible  with  any  other  than 
a  ministerial  standing  in  the  church.  He  was  chosen  to 
be  the  honoured  instrument  of  introducing  to  the  commu- 
nion of  the  Christian  society  the  distinguished  convert 
who  was  destined  to  be  its  brightest  ornament.  That  he 
was,  therefore,  an  elder,  though  not  so  styled,  is  more 
evident  than  that  he  baptized  the  illustrious  catechu- 
men whom  he  was  sent  to  instruct.  Neither  point,  how- 
ever, can  be  reasonably  disputed.* 

It  is,  moreover,  stated  that  Philip  baptized,  and  this 
Philip  was  not  the  apostle  of  that  name.  There  is  no 
proof,  however,  that  he  baptized  in  virtue  of  his  office  as 
one  of  the  seven  deacons  of  the  church  at  Jerusalem,  for 
it  is  expressly  stated,  Acts  xxi.  8,  "  We  entered  into  the 
house  of  Philip,  the  evangelist,  one  of  the  seven,"  and 
to  the  evangelical  office  belonged  the  right  of  administer- 
ing baptism  and  the  kindred  service,  preaching  the  gos- 

f  Some  indeed  say  that  he  was  a  presbyter,  in  virtue  of  his  ordina- 
tion by  Christ,  as  one  of  the  Seventy.  This  is  sheer  assumption.  See 
J  ere  my  Taylor,  Episcopacy  Asserted,  Section  vi.  In  his  Discourse  of 
Confirmation,  Section  iv.,  he  makes  another  assumption,  viz.,  that  An- 
anias was  an  "  extraordinary"  minister,  made  for  the  nonce.  <;  Christ" 
says  he,  "  gave  a  special  commission  to  Ananias,  to  baptize  and  to 
confirm  St.  Paul !"  Such  contradictions,  however,  are  not  uncommon 
in  the  works  of  the  eloquent  and  learned  prelate. 
4 


74 


ADMINISTRATOR  OF  BAPTISM. 


pel — both  of  which  duties  he  certainly  performed. 
Acts  viii. 

It  is  inferred  by  some  that  Cornelius  and  his  friends 
were  baptized  by  laymen,  because  Peter  did  not  baptize 
them  himself,  but  "  commanded  them  to  be  baptized." 
The  service  was,  of  course,  performed  by  the  "  certain 
brethren  from  Joppa,"  who  accompanied  him  to  Cesarea. 
"  These  six  brethren/'  in  all  likelihood,  were  elders,  or 
evangelists,  for  in  the  next  chapter  we  find  them  with 
Peter  at  J erusalem ;  and  why  they  should  thus  accom- 
pany him  from  place  to  place,  if  they  were  not  his  as- 
sistants in  the  ministry,  is  not  so  easy  to  say.  The  fore- 
going three  cases  are  all  that  can  be  pressed  into  the 
cause  of  lay -baptism,  and  not  one  of  them  amounts  to  a 
precept  or  precedent. 

Secondly.  There  is  no  scripiure  forbidding  the  laity  to 
baptize — therefore,  if  they  should  at  any  time  administer 
the  ordinance,  and  it  should  appear  that  it  was  seriously 
done — the  subject,  matter,  and  form,  were  according  to 
the  institution — and  the  party  baptized,  or,  if  an  infant, 
his  natural  representatives,  endorsed  the  act  by  assuming 
the  obligations  of  baptism,  there  ought  to  be  no  rebapti- 
zation. 

It  is  undoubtedly  wrong  for  unclean  men  to  handle  the 
vessels  of  the  Lord.  Such,  whether  numbered  with  the 
laity  or  clergy,  are  obviously  uncalled  of  God.  But  the 
unworthiness  of  the  minister  does  not  invalidate  the  word 
and  ordinances  by  him  administered.  To  say  that  it  does, 
is  to  endorse  the  schismatical  dogma  of  the  Donatists. 
Under  the  profession  and  plea  of  superior  purity,  it  un- 
settles the  faith  and  undermines  the  foundations  of  the 
church.  It  makes  it  impossible  for  any  man  to  know 
that  he  has  been  baptized  at  all ;  for  the  Searcher  of  hearts 
alone  knows  who,  of  all  the  tens  of  thousands  that  mi- 
nister in  holy  things,  are  really  u  set  in  the  church,"  and 
made  "  overseers  of  the  flock  of  God,"  by  the  Holy  Ghost.4 
And  it  is  preposterous  to  say  that  we  must  be  hopefully 
content  with  our  baptism  until  we  ascertain  that  the  party 
who  administered  it,  was  not  divinely  called  and  qualified 


SUMMARY  OF  THE  ARGUMENT. 


75 


for  the  work,  but,  this  ascertained,  we  must  seek  baptism 
from  a  purer  source.  It  does  not  require  divine  revela- 
tion to  satisfy  us  that  no  such  inconvenience  attaches  to 
the  profession  of  Christianity. 

It  is  very  certain  that  the  performance  of  the  ordinance 
by  a  true  minister  of  Jesus  Christ  is  not  a  sine  qua  non, 
not  essential  to  its  validity,  yet  Scripture  empowers  none 
besides  to  administer  it — therefore,  as  an  external,  for- 
mal, symbolical  service,  we  may  consider  it  valid  in  many 
cases  where  it  is  sadly  irregular. 


SECTION  IV. — SUMMARY  OF  THE  ARGUMENT. 

From  all  the  lights  of  Scripture  and  reason,  and  from  an 
examination  of  the  arguments  of  those  who  differ  on  this 
question,  it  may  be  safely  concluded  that  the  church  ought 
not  to  suffer  baptism  to  be  administered  by  any  except 
true  ministers  of  the  word ;  yet,  at  the  same  time,  it  ought 
not  to  rebaptize  those  who  have  been  baptized  in  good 
faith  by  others,  provided  the  matter,  form,  and  subject, 
were  according  to  the  divine  prescription. 

To  ascertain  these  points,  in  all  doubtful  cases,  the  most 
careful  investigation  should  be  instituted,  and  the  supposed 
baptism  should  not  be  repudiated  by  the  church  and  mi- 
nisters of  religion,  if  the  subject  thereof  be  satisfied  with 
it,  and  disposed  to  fulfil  all  the  obligations  involved  in  bap- 
tismal consecration  to  God. 

If,  however,  the  subject  of  such  baptism  should  not  be 
satisfied  himself,  and  should  not  give  satisfactory  evidence 
to  the  authorities  of  the  church,  that  the  foregoing  essen- 
tials obtained  in  his  pretended  baptism,  let  him  be  bap- 
tized— that  would  be  no  rebaptism,  for  he  was  not  bap? 
tized  before.  We  should  place  in  this  category  the  case 
reported  by  Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  in  his  letter  to  Xys- 
tus,  Bishop  of  Rome. 

u  Really,  brother,"  says  he,  "I  need  your  counsel,  and 
I  beg  your  opinion,  on  an  affair  that  has  presented  itself 
to  me,  and  in  which,  indeed,  I  am  afraid  I  may  be  de- 


76 


ADMINISTRATOR  OF  BAPTISM. 


feived.  One  of  the  brethren  who  collected  with  us,  that 
was  considered  a  believer  long  since,  even  before  my  or* 
dination — and  who  I  think  met  with  us  before  the  appoint- 
ment of  the  blessed  Heraclas — this  man  happening  to  be 
present  with  those  that  were  immediately  baptized,  and 
listening  to  the  questions  and  answers,  came  to  me  weep- 
ing and  bewailing  himself,  casting  himself  also  at  my  feet, 
he  began  to  acknowledge  and  abjure  his  baptism  by  the 
heretics,  because  their  baptism  was  nothing  like  this,  nor, 
indeed,  had  any  thing  in  common  with  it,  for  it  was  filled 
with  impiety  and  blasphemies.  He  said  also,  that  his 
soul  was  now  entirely  pierced,  and  he  had  not  confidence 
enough  to  raise  his  eyes  to  God,  coming  from  those  exe- 
crable words  and  deeds.  Hence  he  prayed  that  he  might 
have  the  benefit  of  this  most  perfect  cleansing,  reception, 
and  grace,  which  indeed  I  did  not  dare  to  do,  saying,  that 
his  long  communion  was  sufficient  for  this.  For  one  who 
had  been  in  the  habit  of  hearing  thanksgiving,  and  re- 
peating the  Amen,  and  standing  at  the  table,  and  extend- 
ing his  hand  to  receive  the  sacred  elements,  and  after  re- 
ceiving and  becoming  a  partaker  of  the  body  and  blood 
of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Christ  for  a  long  time,  I  would 
not  dare  to  renew  again  any  further.  I  exhorted  him, 
therefore,  to  take  courage,  and  with  a  firm  faith  and  good 
conscience  to  approach  and  take  part  with  the  saints  in 
the  solemnity  of  the  holy  supper.  But  he  did  not  cease 
lamenting.  He  shuddered  to  approach  the  table,  and 
scarcely  could  endure  it,  even  when  exhorted  to  be  present 
at  prayers/' 

In  a  case  like  that,  if  truly  reported,  we  should  have 
felt  free  to  wash  away  the  poor  man's  tears  by  a  genuine 
baptism,  as  that  which  he  had  received  from  the  heretics 
was  obviously  no  baptism  at  all. 

Nor  should  we  have  scrupled  to  rebaptize  the  playfel- 
lows of  Athanasius,  who  when  a  boy  baptized  them  ac- 
cording to  the  rites  of  the  church,  just  for  their  amuse- 
ment and  his  own — albeit  the  clergy  of  Alexandria  pro- 
nounced the  pretended  baptism  valid  and  sufficient.  That 
can  scarcely  be  considered  a  genuine  and  valid  ordinance, 


SUMMARY  OF  THE  ARGUMENT. 


77 


which  is  neither  administered  nor  received  seriously  and 
in  good  faith. 

If  a  case  should  occur  in  which  there  is  room  for  doubt 
in  regard  to  the  intention,  subject,  element,  or  form,  and 
the  party  involved  should  desire  the  ordinance  to  be  truly 
administered,  he  ought  to  be  allowed  the  benefit  of  the 
doubt :  let  him  be  baptized  on  the  presumption  that  his 
former  supposed  or  pretended  baptism  was  essentially  de- 
fective, and  therefore  null  and  void. 

If  the  church  be  satisfied  with  a  man's  baptism,  on  the 
basis  we  have  laid  down,  and  yet  he  should  not  be  satisfied 
with  it  himself,  he  must  not  be  rebaptized.  He  ought  to 
give  himself  no  concern  about  the  fancied  defectiveness 
of  his  baptism,  as  it  does  not  exclude  him  from  any  of  the 
privileges  of  the  church ;  and  he  ought  the  rather  to  make 
himself  easy  about  the  matter,  as  no  one  is  authorized  to 
baptize  himself  or  to  force  any  one  else  to  baptize  him ; 
and  he  will  not,  therefore,  be  held  accountable  for  con- 
tempt or  neglect  of  the  divine  ordinance,  though  he  might 
not  consider  himself  "  cleansed  according  to  the  purifica- 
tion of  the  sanctuary/7 


78 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 


CHAPTER  V. 
MODE   OF  BAPTISM. 
SECTION  I. — PRESUMPTIONS  IN  FAVOR  OF  AFFUSION. 

The  Mode  of  Baptism  has  reference  to  the  application 
of  the  subject  to  the  element,  as  by  plunging  him  into  it ; 
or  the  application  of  the  element  to  the  subject,  as  by 
sprinkling  him  with  it,  or  pouring  it  on  him. 

As  neither  mode  is  prescribed  to  the  exclusion  of  the 
other,  both  may  be  considered  valid;  yet  on  grounds  of 
convenience  and  congruity  the  latter  is  greatly  preferable. 

As  baptism  takes  the  place  of  circumcision,  there  is  a 
strong  presumption  in  favor  of  affusion,  as  the  more  suit- 
able mode  of  performing  the  rite.  The  rigors  of  the  old 
dispensation  are  done  away  in  the  new.  This  is  alluded 
to  with  great  emphasis  by  St.  Peter.  In  the  council  of 
apostles  and  elders  convened  at  Jerusalem  to  discuss  the 
question  of  circumcision,  he  argued  against  the  enforcing 
of  this  rite,  with  the  other  rites  of  the  Mosaic  institute, 
upon  the  Gentiles,  on  the  ground  of  its  burdensomeness — 
at  least,  this  was  one  of  the  reasons  which  he  adduced. 
He  says  :  "God  which  knoweth  the  hearts  beareth  them 
witness,  giving  them  the  Holy  Ghost,  even  as  he  did  unto 
us,  and  put  no  difference  between  us  and  them,  purifying 
their  hearts  by  faith.  Now,  therefore,  why  tempt  ye  God, 
to  put  %  yoke  upon  the  neck  of  the  disciples,  which  neither 
our  fathers  nor  we  were  able  to  bear  ?"Acts  xv.  But  we 
submit,  that  nothing  is  gained  on  the  score  of  ameliora- 
tion, if,  instead  of  circumcising  every  male  received  into 
the  church,  every  male  and  temale  too  is  to  be  plunged 
into  water,  over  head  and  ears,  no  matter  how  cold  may 
be  the  season — how  far  the  administrator  and  subjects  may 
have  to  go  for  a  river  or  pond — or  how  ill-prepared  they 
may  be,  mentally  or  physically,  to  submit  to  the  plung- 
ing operation. 


i 

PROOFS  OF  AFFUSION. 


7£> 


Affusion  is  always  and  everywhere  practicable  and  un- 
injurious,  as  well  as  simple  and  decent ;  whereas  plunging 
is  dangerous  and  indelicate  in  some  cases,  difficult  in  some 
and  impossible  in  others.  The  former,  therefore,  and  not 
the  latter,  exhibits  the  genius  of  a  Christian  ordinance,  as 
the  church,  being  catholic,  must  be  adapted  in  its  institu- 
tions to  all  ages,  seasons,  and  climes — to  every  nation, 
and  kindred,  and  people,  and  tongue.  How,  it  may  be 
asked,  can  invalids  be  baptized,  except  by  sprinkling  or 
pouring  ?  It  is  absurd  to  talk  about  their  being  preserved 
from  the  dangerous  effects  of  immersion  by  a  special  pro- 
vidence— that  is  to  say,  a  miracle ;  for  facts  as  well  as 
reason  prove  that  God  is  not  so  profuse  in  his  outlay  of 
miraculous  influence.  And  we  are  sometimes  called  upon 
to  administer  the  ordinance  to  those  who  must  receive 
clinical  baptism,  or  be  debarred  the  privilege  which  they 
earnestly  desire,  and -to  which  they  are  undoubtedly  en- 
titled. Missionaries  too  may  find  it  rathei  more  convenient 
to  "  sprinkle  many  nations/'  after  the  example  of  their 
Master,  than  to  immerse  them — as,  for  instance,  the  de- 
scendants of  Ishmael  in  the  arid  territories  of  Arabia,  and 
the  inhabitants  of  northern  climes,  the  regions  of  "  thick- 
ribbed  ice."  Under  such  circumstances  immersion  is  out 
of  the  question ;  yet  all  nations  must  be  discipled^-there- 
fore  the  purifying  ordinance  of  Christianity  is  not  immer- 
sion. 


SECTION  II. — PROOFS  OF  AFFUSION. 

All  the  presumptions  of  the  case  are  in  favor  of  affu- 
sion or  pouring,  as  the  more  suitable  mode  of  performing 
the  purifying  ordinance  of  Christianity.  But  we  have 
proofs,  positive  proofs,  as  well  as  presumptions. 

St.  Paul,  having  alluded  to  the  "  divers  washings,"  8ia$6pois 
(5a7t*L(stioi$,  literally  various  baptisms,  of  the  Jewish  econo- 
my, says  :  "  If  the  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats,  and  the 
ashes  of  a  heifer,  sprinkling  the  unclean,  sanctifieth  to  the 
purifying  of  the  flesh,  how  much  more  shall  the  blood  of 


80 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 


Christ,  who  through  the  eternal  Spirit  offered  himself  with- 
I  out  spot  to  God,  purge  jour  conscience  from  dead  works 
to  serve  the  living  God."  Heb.  ix.  Every  attentive 
reader  of  the  Pentateuch  knows  that  the  purifications  here 
alluded  to  were  effected  by  aspersion  or  affusion,  as  the 
apostle  affirms,  and  these  sprinklings  he  calls  baptisms. 
The  Hebrew  word  tabal,  frequently  rendered  to  dip,  is 
indeed  never  used  when  these  ceremonial  washings  of  the 
person  are  enjoined. 

The  case  specially  adduced  by  the  apostle  is  very  preg- 
nant He  alludes  to  the  purification  of  unclean  persons 
by  water,  into  which  had  been  cast  the  ashes  of  a  burnt 
heifer.  This  water  of  separation  was  to  be  sprinkled  upon 
a  man  that  had  touched  a  corpse,  to  effect  his  purification, 
Num.  xix. )  and  this  sprinkling  St.  Paul  expressly  styles 
baptism. 

In  like  manner  the  baptism  of  Levites,  of  leprous  per- 
sons, and  of  the  whole  congregation  of  Israel  was  by 
sprinkling.  The  priests,  indeed,  were  to  be  washed  at  the 
door  of  the  tabernacle,  but  not  immersed.  The  water 
was  applied  to  their  person,  perhaps,  more  copiously  than 
in  the  ordinary  baptisms — the  superior  dignity  of  their  of- 
fice occasioning  greater  formality  in  their  consecration. 

The  Hebrew  rahats,  like  its  Greek  representative,  bap- 
tizOy  means  to  purify  without  any  reference  to  mode.  The 
person  purified  may  be  immersed  in  a  river,  or  affused  by 
a  hyssop-sprinkler,  and  in  either  case  these  terms  would 
be  appropriate  to  express  the  action — though  the  "  various 
baptisms"  alluded  to  by  the  apostle  were  all  effected  by 
affusion. 

This  appropriation  of  the  term  is  in  accordance  with 
the  usus  loquendi  of  the  New  Testament. 

When  cautioning  the  Corinthians  against  apostasy,  St. 
Paul  adduces  the  pregnant  case  of  the  Israelites,  and  ap- 
plies it  by  way  of  warning  to  Christians,  lest  they  having 
been  baptized  into  Christ,  that  is,  initiated  by  baptism 
into  his  dispensation,  might  fall,  as  did  the  Jews,  after 
they  had  been  symbolically  initiated  into  the  dispensation 
of  Moses.    He  says;  "  Moreover,  Orethren,  I  would  not 


PROOFS  OP  AFFUSION. 


8) 


that  ye  should  be  ignorant,  how  that  all  our  fathers  were 
under  the  cloud,  and  all  passed  through  the  sea ;  and 
were  all  baptized  unto  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the 
sea."  1  Cor.  x.  1,  2.  Now,  Pharaoh  and  his  host  knew 
that  the  Israelites  were  not  immersed  in  either,  though 
they  might  be  sprinkled  with  the  mist  and  spray  of  both. 
The  Egyptians  indeed  were  immersed,  as  Moses  sang, 
"  The  depths  have  covered  them  :  they  sank  into  the  bot- 
tom as  a  stone."  "  For  the  horse  of  Pharaoh  went  in 
with  his  chariots  and  with  his  horsemen  into  the  sea,  and 
the  Lord  brought  again  the  waters  of  the  sea  upon  them ; 
but  the  children  of  Israel  went  on  dry  land  in  the  midst 
of  the  sea."  Ex.  xv. 

The  Anabaptists,  therefore,  make  St.  Paul  contradict 
Moses,  by  their  translation  :  u  And  were  all  immersed  into 
Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea."  Some,  indeed,  are 
aware  of  this,  and  consequently  content  themselves  with 
contradicting  common  sense  by  certain  unintelligible  jargon 
about  a  "  figurative  immersion" — not  a  quasi  immer- 
sion by  the  sea  that  was  both  sides  of  them,  and  the  cloud, 
which,  by  the  way,  was  not  above,  but  behind  them, 
while  they  "  walked  upon  dry  land  in  the  midst  of  the  sea, 
and  the  waters  were  a  wall  unto  them  on  their  right  hand 
and  on  their  left" — an  immersion  in  the  water  "though 
they  were  not  touched  with  it !"  Rather  than  resort  to 
this  pitiful  shift,  some  immersionists  resolve  the  whole 
affair  into  a  metaphor !  This  is  a  plunging,  with  a  wit- 
ness. But  what  else  can  be  done  by  those,  who  are  de- 
termined not  to  see,  that  this  consecration  of  the  Israelites 
to  the  service  of  God  under  Moses,  effected  as  it  was  by 
sprinkling,  is  called  baptism  by  the  apostle  ? — a  baptism, 
by  the  way,  of  men,  women,  and  children — a  clear  case 
of  "  baby-sprinkling,"  to  borrow  a  favorite  and  classical 
phrase  from  those  who  have  courage  enough  to  turn  sacred 
things  into  profane  ridicule. 

The  ceremonial  rite  which  John  administered  is  styled 
baptism,  and  yet  it  was  performed  by  pouring  or  affusion, 

Origen,  who  was  a  competent  Greek  scholar,  speaking 
of  John  the  Baptist,  as  the  Elias  who  was  to  come,  as- 
4* 


82 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 


signs  pouring  as  the  action  or  mode  by  which  his  baptism 
was  administered.  He  says  :  "  How  came  you  to  think 
that  Elias  when  he  should  come  would  baptize,  who  did 
not  in  Ahab's  time  baptize  the  wood  upon  the  altar,  but 
ordered  the  priests  to  do  that?  Not  only  once,  says  he,  but 
do  it  a  second  time,  and  they  did  it  the  second  time,  etc" 
Another  quasi  immersion,  we  suppose,  as  the  wood  was 
well  drenched  with  the  water  !  But  the  account  in  1  Kings 
xviii.  states  that  the  water  was  poured  on  the  wood  at  the 
command  of  Elijah,  not  that  the  wood  was  plunged  into 
the  water.  So,  says  Origen,  the  Baptist,  but  in  his  own 
person,  baptized  the  people.  He  poured  water  upon  them. 
This  agrees  with  engravings,  mosaics,  and  sculptures  of 
Origen's  time,  which  all  represent  John  baptizing  Christ 
by  pouring. 

It  is  a  curious  fact  that  Mr.  Wolff  met  with  a  sect  of 
Christians  in  Mesopotamia,  calling  themselves  the  follow- 
ers of  John  the  Baptist,  who,  because  he  baptized  in  the 
Jordan,  carry  their  children  to  a  river  when  they  are 
thirty  days  old,  and  baptize  them  by  sprinkling. 

It  should  be  observed  that  baptism  was  a  Jewish  rite, 
and  there  is  nothing  to  forbid  the  opinion  that  it  was 
administered  by  John  in  the  modes  common  among  the 
Jews.  By  their  methods  of  purification,  it  was  possible 
for  him  to  baptize  the  immense  multitudes  that  came 
to  his  baptism — but  not  by  immersing  them  :  no,  nor  by 
pouring  water  upon  every  person  separately.  His  minis- 
try lasted  less  than  a  year,  during  which  time  he  bap- 
tized, perhaps,  two  or  three  millions.  It  appears  from 
the  record  that  he  performed  the  rite  in  his  own  person, 
(Matt.  iii.  6,)  as  Moses  baptized  the  Israelites  in  the  wil- 
derness; and  why  may  not  John  have  baptized  the  mul- 
titudes in  the  same  way  ?  He  could  marshal  them  in  con- 
venient order,  and  sprinkle  them,  either  with  or  without 
the  bunch  of  hyssop  which  was  employed  by  Moses. 

It  is  stated  by  the  evangelist :  "  Then  went  out  to  him 
Jerusalem,  and  all  Judea,  and  all  the  region  round  about 
Jordan,  and  were  baptized  of  him  in  Jordan,  confessing 
their  sins/'    It  was  a  physical  impossibility  that  J ohn 


PROOFS  OF  AFFUSION. 


83 


should  immerse  these  vast  multitudes ;  and  if  it  had  been 
possible,  it  would  not  have  been  proper,  for  it  is  alike 
absurd  and  gratuitous  to  affirm  that  they  all  came  pre- 
pared with  baptismal  robes,  and  no  one  can  suppose  that 
they  were  immersed  without  change  of  apparel;  and  to' 
immerse  promiscuous  multitudes  in  a  state  of  nudity  is  a 
supposition  so  extravagant  as  well  as  indecent,  that  we 
cannot  feel  called  upon  to  refute  it. 

It  is,  indeed,  generally  affirmed  that  baptism  was  re- 
ceived naked  in  the  primitive  church ;  and  that  the  dea- 
conesses were  had  in  requisition  to  prepare  the  female 
candidates  for  the  ceremony,  so  that  the  administrator 
did  not  see  them  until  they  were  in  the  water,  when  he 
entered  the  baptistery  and  plunged  them.  We  are  aware 
that  superstition  can  overcome  even  the  modesty  of  an 
oriental  virgin ;  but  this  case  seems  too  incredible. 

Mr.  Salt,  in  describing  the  ceremonies  connected  with 
the  baptism  of  a  boy  in  Abyssinia,  says,  that  he  was  first 
"  washed  all  over  carefully  in  a  large  basin  of  water,  and 
then  brought  to  a  smaller  font,  called  me-te-mak,"  when  the 
baptismal  pledges  were  given  and  the  priest  baptized  him 
by  affusion,  u  dipping  his  own  hand  into  the  water,  and 
crossed  him  over  the  forehead,  pronouncing  at  the  same 
moment,  George,  I  baptize  thee  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Grhost."  The  washing  that  preceded  the 
baptism  in  this  case  may  perhaps  illustrate  the  part  per- 
formed by  the  deaconesses  in  the  ancient  Greek  church. 
They  may  have  washed  the  female  candidates  and  clothed 
them  in  white,  preparatory  to  their  baptism  by  the  priest 
The  Abyssinian  boy,  indeed,  remained  naked  after  the 
preparatory  washing,  until  he  was  baptized  and  anointed — 
but  there  is  some  difference  between  male  children  and 
female  adults,  even  in  Abyssinia. 

We  are  not  concerned  to  know  whether  John's  prose 
lytes  washed  themselves  all  over  carefully  in  a  basin, 
river,  or  spring,  before  he  baptized  them — it  is  enough 
for  us  to  know  that  the  Baptist  never  immersed  them. 
Of  this  we  have  furnished  proof  that  no  counter  testimony 
can  successfully  rebut — no  logic  can  possibly  subvert. 


84 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 


The  Jews,  who  were  contemporary  with  John  the  Bap- 
tist, attached  the  idea  of  purification  to  the  word  baptism, 
and,  like  him,  performed  the  oft-repeated  ceremony  by 
aspersion. 

In  the  Gospel  according  to  St.  John  (c.  iii.)  we  read; 
"  After  these  things  came  Jesus  and  his  disciples  into  the 
land  of  Judea;  and  there  he  tarried  with  them,  and  bap- 
tized. And  John  also  was  baptizing  in  JEnon,  near  to 
Salim,  because  there  was  much  water  there;  and  they 
came  and  were  baptized.  For  John  was  not  yet  cast  into 
prison.  Then  there  arose  a  question  between  some  of 
John's  disciples  and  the  Jews,  about  purifying.  And  they 
came  unto  John,  and  said  unto  him,  Rabbi,  he  that  was 
with  thee  beyond  Jordan,  to  whom  thou  bearest  witness, 
behold,  the  same  baptizeth,  and  all  men  come  to  hini." 
This  question  about  purifying,  therefore,  was  a  question 
concerning  the  baptism  administered  by  John  and  that 
administered  by  Jesus.  The  Jews  accordingly  understood 
baptism  to  mean  purification  ;  and  such  purification  as  was 
effected  by  sprinkling.  Hence  we  read  in  the  preceding 
chapter,  of  "  six  water-pots  of  stone,"  set  in  a  house,  "  after 
the  manner  of  the  purifying  of  the  Jews,  containing  two  or 
three  firkins,  p,Wpq4&f,  apiece" — enough  for  sprinkling 
purposes,  but  not  for  immersion. 

Agreeably  to  this,  the  evangelist  says  :  "  The  Pharisees 
and  all  the  Jews,  except  they  wash  their  hands  oft,  eat 
not,  holding  the  tradition  of  the  elders.  And  when  they 
come  from  the  market,  except  they  wash,  they  eat  not. 
And  many  other  things  there  be,  which  they  have  received 
to  hold,  as  the  washing  of  cups  and  pots,  brazen  vessels, 
and  of  tables."  Mark  vii.  3,  4.  In  this  passage  there  are 
two  Greek  words,  both  rendered  wash.  The  first,  vi^vtai, 
nipsontai,  means  to  wash,  and  if  any  particular  mode  is 
expressed  by  the  word,  it  is  that  of  shaking  out,  and  fall- 
ing  down,  as  the  distillation  of  dew  or  mist,  and  the  de- 
scension  of  rain — most  likely  in  allusion  to  the  ancient 
k  custom  of  washing  hands  and  feet  by  the  assistance  of  a 
servant,  who  poured  out  the  water  on  the  part  to  be 
cleansed:  hence  2  Kings  iii.  11:  "Here  is  Elisha,  the 


PROOFS  OF  AFFUSION. 


85 


son  of  Shaphat,  which  poured  water  on  the  hands  of 
Elijah. "  This  must  have  been  the  common  mode  of  ab- 
lution, or  the  office  of  an  attendant  would  not  have  been 
so  described.  Indeed,  it  is  common  at  this  day  among 
the  orientals,  who  do  not  change  their  customs  as  we 
change  ours.  This  word  then  describes  particularly  the 
manner  of  the  action,  which  is  generally  expressed  in  the 
other  word,  paTtttpwto.L,  baptisontai,  which  by  itself  means 
simply  to  purify. 

Observe,  too,  the  baptism  in  question  was  not  confined 
to  the  hands,  cups,  pots,  and  brazen  vessels,  but  extended 
also  to  the  tables,  x^wZv,  clinon,  properly,  the  beds  or 
couches,  on  which  they  reclined  at  meals.  They  attended 
to  the  washing,  ftarttKjfiovs,  the  baptism  of  these  before 
they  ate.  But  a  man  must  be  insane,  or  at  least  blinded 
by  prejudice,  who  can  suppose  that  these  couches  or  beds 
— each  of  which  was  large  enough  for  the  accommodation 
of  several  persons — together  with  their  occupants,  were 
immersed  before  every  meal !  "  Taken  to  pieces  for  the 
purpose/7  says  a  determined  plunger  !  A  rare  expedient, 
truly  !  We  leave  it  to  any  unprejudiced  person  of  com- 
mon sense — to  any  child  that  can  read  the  record — to  de- 
cide whether  or  not  these  Jewish  purifications  were  per- 
formed by  sprinkling,  and  that  with  the  water  kept  for 
the  purpose  in  their  water-pots  of  stone.  This  certainly 
was  the  manner  of  the  purifying  of  the  Jews — this  was 
the  mode  of  their  baptisms — for  J ohn  and  Mark  say  so. 

It  does  not,  indeed,  follow  that  because  the  baptisms  of 
Moses  and  John  and  the  Jews  were  administered  by 
aspersion  or  affusion,  that  therefore  Christian  baptism 
must  be  so  administered.  It  proves,  however,  that  the 
term  baptism  may  be  used  of  a  purifying  ordinance,  when 
this  is  the  mode  of  its  administration.  That  Christian 
baptism  was  accordingly  performed  by  affusion  we  have 
ample  proof. 

The  first  recorded  instance  of  the  performance  of  bap^ 
tism,  under  the  great  apostolic  commission,  was  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost.  This  baptism  was  by  aspersion,  or  affu- 
sion.   There  were  no  places  in  Jerusalem  suitable  for  im 


86 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 


mersion,  except  such  as  were  under  the  control  of  the 
Jews,  who  would  not  have  allowed  the  apostles  to  use  the 
pool  of  Siloam,  or  the  pool  of  Bethesda,  where  the  sacri- 
fices were  washed,  for  the  immersion  of  three  thousand 
Christian  converts.  To  suppose  they  would  is  a  simple 
absurdity.  The  brook  Kedron  is  dry  at  the  time  of  Pen- 
tecost )  and  when  it  is  not  dry  it  is  no  place  for  immer- 
sion, as  instead  of  gliding  along  as  a  "  silver  stream/'  as 
one  of  our  poets  expresses  it,  it  pours  down  its  black 
turbid  waters,  carrying  off  the  filth  of  the  northern  por- 
tion of  the  city.    Kedron  is  a  beautiful  baptistery ! 

Besides,  it  was  impossible  for  the  twelve  apostles  to 
immerse  such  a  multitude  in  some  six  or  eight  hours,  for 
they  did  not  enter  upon  the  work  of  baptizing  until  after 
Peter's  sermon,  and  he  did  not  begin  preaching  until  nine 
o'clock. 

It  is  perfectly  gratuitous  to  associate  the  "  seventy 
disciples"  with  the  twelve  apostles  in  this  work.  The 
seventy  were  sent  out  by  our  Lord,  "  two  and  two  before 
his  face,  into  every  city  and  place,  whither  he  himself 
would  come,"  to  prepare  the  people  for  his  ministry 
among  them.  After  they  returned  to  their  Divine  Em- 
ployer, and  reported  the  result  of  their  peculiar  mission, 
not  another  word  is  said  about  them  in  the  inspired  re- 
cord. Some  of  the  fathers  indeed  pretend  that  the  seven 
deacons  at  Jerusalem,  and  also  Matthias,  Mark,  Luke, 
Barnabas,  Sosthenes,  Justus,  Thaddeus,  and  others,  real 
or  fictitious  evangelists,  were  taken  from  the  seventy.  But 
nobody  knows  any  thing  more  about  the  seventy  disciples 
than  the  short  account  of  their  temporary  ministry  given 
us  in  the  tenth  of  Luke.  They  are  not  even  alluded  tc 
in  any  other  part  of  Scripture.  What  became  of  them— 
what  were  their  names — we  cannot  tell  \  for,  as  Eusebius 
says,  "no  catalogue  of  them  is  anywhere  given." 

We  do  not  see  how  Saul  could  be  baptized  by  plunging 
in  the  house  of  Judas,  in  the  city  of  Damascus,  in  the 
street  called  Straight,  especially  as  it  is  said,  "  standing 
up,  ava<rtn$,  he  was  baptized."  Acts  ix.    The  rite  must 


PROOFS  OF  AFFUSION. 


87 


have  been  performed  by  the  application  of  the  element  to 
the  subject — that  is,  by  affusion. 

It  must  have  been  so  performed,  also,  in  the  case  of  St. 
Peter's  converts,  in  the  house  of  Cornelius.  Accordingly, 
the  apostle  does  not  say,  "  Can  any  man  forbid  that  these 
should  go  to  the  water  and  be  baptized  V — but,  "  Can 
any  man  forbid  water,  [evidently,  to  be  brought,"]  that 
these  should  not  be  baptized,  which  have  received  the 
Holy  Grhost  as  well  as  we  ?"  Acts  x.  47. 

Who  can  believe  that  Lydia  and  her  family  were  im- 
mersed in  the  river  Strymon,  near  which  prayer  was 
wont  to  be  made,  and  where  the  apostle's  sermon  was 
preached  ?  As  soon  as  she  was  converted,  she  and  her 
children  were  baptized ;  but  not  the  slightest  intimation 
was  given  that  there  was  a  moment's  delay  for  change  of 
apparel,  and  certainly  she  could  not  be  immersed  without 
this.  The  immersion  of  a  female  by  a  person  of  the  other 
sex  is  revolting  to  us  under  any  circumstances — it  must  be 
exceedingly  repulsive  to  the  delicate  sensibilities  of  a 
woman.  Yet  Lydia  was  baptized  by  the  apostle — surely 
not  immersed  !  Acts  xvi. 

The  Philippian  jailer  too  must  have  been  baptized  by 
affusion.  His  conversion  took  place  in  the  prison — at 
midnight — and  he  and  all  his  were  baptized  straight- 
way. We  are  sure  Paul  and  Silas  did  not  take  them  down 
to  the  river — especially  at  that  unseemly  hour — and 
plunge  them  into  it;  for  the  noble-minded  prisoners 
would  not  leave  the  precincts  of  the  jail  until  they  were 
taken  out,  in  daylight,  by  proper  authority.  And  it  is 
equally  gratuitous  and  absurd  to  say  there  was  a  bath  or 
tank  in  the  prison,  in  which  the  jailer  and  his  family 
were  immersed.  A  small  portion  of  the  water  which  he 
brought  into  the  prison  to  wash  the  apostle's  "  stripes," 
was  sufficient  for  his  baptism,  as,  like  all  the  other  cases 
of  baptism  of  which  any  particulars  are  given  in  the  New 
Testament,  it  was  administered  by  pouring  or  aspersion. 


88 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 


SECTION  III. — DEMONSTRATIONS  OF  AFFUSION. 

The  foregoing  proofs  are  irrefutable.  But  we  have 
others,  if  possible,  still  stronger — proofs  that  have  both 
the  form  and  force  of  positive  demonstrations. 

As  baptism  with  water  represents  the  application  of 
the  Spirit's  influences  to  believers  in  Christ,  the  meaning 
of  the  term  and  the  mode  of  the  ordinance  can  be  readily 
ascertained  by  a  reference  to  those  passages  of  Scripture 
which  refer  to  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  connec- 
tion with  water  baptism. 

In  the  third  chapter  of  Matthew,  John  the  Baptist 
says  :  "  I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water  unto  repentance  ; 
but  he  that  cometh  after  me  is  mightier  than  I,  whose 
shoes  I  am  not  worthy  to  bear  :  he  shall  baptize  you  with 
the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire." 

In  the  first  of  Acts,  Luke  tells  us  that  Jesus  "  showed 
himself  alive  after  his  passion,  by  many  infallible  proofs, 
being  seen  of  his  disciples  forty  days,  and  speaking  of  the 
things  pertaining  to  the  kingdom  of  God ;  and  being  as- 
sembled together  with  them,  commanded  them  that  they 
should  not  depart  from  Jerusalem,  but  wait  for  the  pro- 
mise  of  the  Father,  which,  saith  he,  ye  have  heard  of  me; 
for  John  truly  baptized  with  toater,  but  ye  shall  be  bap- 
tized with  the  Holy  Ghost,  not  many  days  hence."  And 
u  ye  shall  receive  power,  after  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  come 
upon  you." 

Accordingly,  in  the  next  chapter  we  read  :  u  And  when 
the  day  of  Pentecost  was  fully  come,"  [ten  days  after  the 
Saviour's  promise  was  given,  which  he  said  should  be  ful- 
filled "  not  many  days  hence,"]  "  they  were  all  with  one 
accord  in  one  place.  And  suddenly  there  came  a  sound 
from  heaven,  as  of  a  rushing  mighty  wind,  and  it  filled  all 
the  house  where  they  were  sitting.  And  there  appeared 
unto  them  cloven  tongues,  like  as  of  fire,  and  it  sat  upon 
each  of  them  ;  and  they  were  all  filled  with  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  began  to  speak  with  tongues,  as  the  Spirit 


DEMONSTRATIONS  OP  AFFUSION- 


89 


gave  them  utterance."  Commenting  on  this'  wonderful 
transaction,  St.  Peter  says  :  "  This  is  that  which  was 
spoken  by  the  prophet  Joel :  And  it  shall  come  to  pass 
in  the  last  days,  saith  God,  I  will  pour  out  of  my  Spirit 
upon  all  flesh )  and  your  sons  and  your  daughters  shall 
prophesy,  and  your  young  men  shall  see  visions,  and  your 
old  men  shall  dream  dreams ;  and  on  my  servants  and  on 
my  hand-maidens  I  will  pour  out  of  my  Spirit,  and  they 
shall  prophesy/' 

Now,  if  it  be  not  admitted  that  this  remarkable  pente- 
costal  transaction  was  a  fulfilment  of  the  promise  which 
was  to  take  place  not  many  days  from  the  date  of  its  de- 
livery— "  he  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost" — it 
is  useless  to  cite  apostolic  authority  in  support  of  any 
doctrine  or  any  fact.  But  if  St.  Peter  be  a  competent 
witness,  and  the  occurrence  at  Pentecost  be,  indeed,  as  he 
asserts,  a  fulfilment  of  the  predictions  of  Joel,  John  the 
Baptist,  and  Christ,  then  it  follows  that  the  coming  doiun 
of  the  Holy  G-host  upon  the  apostles,  and  the  pouring  out 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

Alluding  to  the  case  of  Cornelius  and  his  company, 
Acts  xi.,  the  apostle  observes :  "-As  I  began  to  speak, 
the  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  them,  as  on  us  at  the  beginning. 
Then  remembered  I  the  word  of  the  Lord,  how  that  he 
said,  John  indeed  baptized  with  water;  but  ye  shall  be 
baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost."  We  pronounce  this  A 
demonstration.  Nothing  can  be  advanced  against  it 
but  utter  cavilling. 

How  impertinent,  how  preposterous,  to  adduce  texts 
which  speak  of  our  being  surrounded  with  God,  and  the 
like,  to  prove  that  the  disciples  were  immersed  in  the 
Spirit,  and  in  the  sound  of  wind,  and  in  the  tongues  of 
fire  which  sat  upon  them!  This  is  somewhat  too  absurd. 
Such  extraneous  passages  have  nothing  to  do  with  bap- 
tism :  the  various  actions  of  which  they  speak  are  never 
styled  baptism ;  but  the  outpouring  of  the  Spirit  is  so 
styled  by  Christ  and  his  apostles,  and  so  is  that  outpour- 
ing of  water  by  which  it  is  represented. 

Mr.  Booth's  "  electrical  bath,"  in  which  "  the  electrical 


90 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 


fluid  surrounds  the  patient/ '  may  do  well  enough  to  repro 
sent  the  wind  which  tilled  all  the  house  where  the  disci- 
ples were  sitting;  but  how  it  can  represent  the  pouring  out 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  upon  them,  or  even  the  filling  of  them 
with  the  Spirit,  we  cannot  imagine.  The  filling  of  the 
house  with  wind  and  the  filling  of  the  disciples  with  the 
Spirit  were  very  different  things,  though  the  action  in 
either  case  was  the  coming  down  of  the  agent,  and  not  the 
plunging  under  of  the  subject. 

Accordingly,  Mr.  Booth's  scientific  interpretation  is  not 
much  accounted  of  by  some  immersionists.  Thus  Dr. 
Howell  says,  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  has  no  direct  refer- 
ence to  the  mode  of  baptism.  And  yet,  we  are  told,  the 
word  baptism  always  signifies  mode — a  mode,  and  nothing 
but  a  mode  !  No  marvel  that  a  somewhat  more  consistent 
immersionist  exclaims,  "  From  this  view  we  totally  dis- 
sent. The  baptism  of  the  Spirit  is  but  vaguely  explained 
by  Dr.  Howell's  paraphrase  :  'it  is  the  act  of  putting  men 
under  the  influence  of  the  Spirit/  "  Vaguely  explained 
indeed ! 

But  the  critic  himself  is  not  much  more  perspicuous — 
he  is  a  little  more  eloquent  perhaps,  but  not  a  whit  nearer 
the  truth,  when  he  says  : — 

"The  propriety  of  the  scriptural  figure  arises  out  of  the 
overwhelming  nature  of  the  influence  which  came  down 
like  a  mighty  rushing  wind  from  heaven,  and  filled  all 
the  house  in  which  the  disciples  were  assembled,  and 
rolled  its  deep  tide  of  light  and  rapture  over  every  heart." 

Fine  writing  !  Pity  the  criticism  is  not  equal  to  the 
eloquence,  and  that  the  logic  does  not  keep  pace  with  the 
rhetoric  !  It  was  not  the  wind  that  is  said  to  have  bap- 
tized the  disciples ;  nor  was  it  the  Holy  Ghost  that  is 
said  to  have  filled  the  house.  How  strange  fcUfcthesc 
should  be  confounded  !  Whatever  poetry  may  be^erpe- 
trated  in  regard  to  the  rolling  of  a  "  deep  tide  of  light 
and  rapture  over  every  heart,"  a  child  can  see  that  there 
was  no  plunging  in  the  pentecostal  baptism.  That  bap- 
tism was  administered  by  the  Holy  Ghost's  coming  upon 
the  disciples — l7t£%66vtos  vfid$ — supervenientis,  Acts 


DEMONSTRATIONS  OF  AFFUSION. 


91 


'  i.  8 — his  being  shed  forth  or  poured  out — ^ffudit^ 
Acts  ii.  33 — his  falling  upon  them — eTtircsse  irf?  avtovs, 
cecidit  super  eos,  Acts  xi.  15.  Compare  Acts  ii.  17;  x. 
44-47 — all  forms  of  speech  totally  incompatible  with  th« 
notion  of  dipping  or  plunging. 

This  outpouring  of  the  Spirit  is  repeatedly  called  tho 
baptism  of  the  Spirit,  and  is  associated  with  water  baptism, 
by  which  it  is  symbolized — therefore  the  mode  of  the 
latter  must  be  affusion,  or  it  would  be  no  representation 
of  the  former. 

Observe,  the  action  is  pouring  or  affusion — the  amount 
of  the  element  applied  in  the  administration  is  a  mere 
circumstance  :  the  question  has  to  do  with  nothing  but 
the  mode.  If  the  water  were  poured  upon  a  person  so 
copiously,  as  that  it  would  rise  up  around  him  and  over 
his  head,  so  that  he  might  be  actually  immersed  in  it,  the 
immersionists  would  not  consider  him  baptized,  as  the 
water  would  be  applied  to  the  subject,  and  not  the  subject 
to  the  water  :  he  would  not  be  plunged  into  it ;  and  with- 
out plunging,  they  boldly  affirm,  there  is  no  baptism. 

One  would  think  it  must  require  no  ordinary  amount  of 
courage  to  make  such  an  affirmation,  so  palpably  contra- 
dictory of  the  teachings  of  inspiration. 

Mark  how  obviously  St.  Paul  corroborates  this  rational 
and  scriptural  view  of  the  subject.  He  says:  "Not  by 
works  of  righteousness  which  we  have  done,  but  accord- 
ing to  his  mercy  he  saved  us,  by  the  ivashing  of  regenera- 
tion and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  he  shed  on  us 
abundantly  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Saviour."  Titus  iii. 
5,  6.  The  loutron,  here  rendered  washing,  means  a  bath 
or  laver. 

The  cold  bath  was  named  indifferently  by  the  ancient 
authors,  natatio,  natatorium,  piscina,  baptisterium,  puteus, 
%ovtpov,  loutron.  "  The  baptisterium  is  not  a  bath  suffi- 
ciently large  to  immerse  the  whole  body,  but  a  vessel  or 
labrum,  containing  cold  water  for  pouring  over  the  head." 
See  the  Article  "  Baths,"  in  Anthon's  Smith's  Dictionary 
of  Greek  and  Roman  Antiquities,  where  there  are  repre- 
sentations of  the  ancient  baths. 


92 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 


Now,  if  the  internal  renewing  of  th€  Holy  Ghost  be* 
effected  by  an  influence  coming  dofan  upon  and  applied  to 
the  subject — a  pouring  out  and  a  shedding  on  him — 
surely  the  external  washing  of  regeneration,  the  sign  of 
the  inward  grace,  should  be  effected  by  a  corresponding 
modal  application.  Plunging  a  man  into  water  can  never 
represent  the  pouring  out  of  the  Holy  Ghost  upon  him ; 
and  this,  we  have  seen,  is  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
We  are  perfectly  secure  at  this  point,  and  are  more  than 
willing  to  abide  by  the  answer  which  any  unprejudiced 
man  would  render  to  the  question  :  If  God  performs  his 
baptism  by  affusion,  ought  we  to  perform  ours  by  immer- 
sion ? 


SECTION  IV.  OBJECTIONS  TO  AFFUSION  ANSWERED. 

Were  we  not  apprized  of  the  pertinacity  with  which  the 
mind  of  man  holds  fast  to  an  opinion  once  received,  how- 
soever clearly  its  erroneousness  may  be  demonstrated,  we 
should  certainly  think  it  impossible  that  any  one  would 
attempt  to  prove  that  to  be  false  which  by  so  many  infal- 
lible proofs  has  been  shown  to  be  true.  But  what  mira- 
cles will  not  some  men  attempt  to  perform  ? 

1.  We  have  clearly  shown  that  the  term  baptism,  ac- 
cording to  the  Scriptures,  means  purification,  and  that  the 
mode  of  performing  the  ordinance,  so  far  as  the  inspired 
reo-^rds  give  testimony,  is  by  affusion,  and  not  by  im- 
mersion. Yet  we  are  told  that  the  Greek  words  ^an^w, 
f5a7ttl£u,  part-tusna,  and  f3a7ftiGiib$,  mean  exclusively  to 
plunge,  to  immerse,  plunging  and  immersion ;  and  some- 
times we  meet  with  long  catalogues  of  names,  representing 
the  theological  literature  of  ancient  and  modern  Christen- 
dom, in  favor  of  the  position. 

Now  we  must  beg  leave  to  say,  that  this  contains  a  palpa- 
ble misstatement,  and  what  looks  very  much  like  "  a  pious 
fraud/'  The  authorities  cited  in  favor  of  immersion  have 
never  said  that  this  is  the  only  meaning  of  the  word  bap* 
tisma,  or  baptismos  ;  they  have,  nearly  to  a  man,  affirmed 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 


93 


directly  tke  contrary,  and  their  practice  has  corroborated 
their  testimony.  They  have  taught  that  baptism  means 
affusion  as  well  as  immersion ;  and  for  reasons  good;  and 
sufficient  to  them,  and  good  and  sufficient  to  all  other  un- 
prejudiced persons,  they  have  performed  the  ordinance  by 
the  former  mode.  And  it  is  not  very  creditable  to  charge 
them  with  errors  with  which  they  had  no  sympathy.  But 
their  testimony  on  this  subject  is  before  the  world;  and 
we  do  not  feel  it  necessary  to  defend  them  from  the  un- 
scrupulous attacks  which  some  schismatical  iminersionists 
have  made  upon  them.  Those  great  and  holy  men — the 
burning  and  shining  lights  of  the  church  of  Christ — be- 
lieved what  they  taught  and  practised  in  reference  to>  bap- 
tism ;  and  it  were  well  if  their  impugners  womld  copy 
their  example,  or  at  least  make  an  honest  use  of  their 
authority. 

Who  ever  denied  that  the  word  pantc*,  from  which 
jSartrtfto  is  derived,  sometimes  means  to  immerse?  In- 
deed, who  ever  denied  that  the  derivative  baptizo  is  some- 
times used  in  the  same  sense,  albeit  as  a  derivative  it& 
meaning  varies  considerably  from  the  primitive  word  ? 

How  impertinent  to  adduce  an  imposing  catalogue  of 
citations  from  profane  authors  to  prove  what  nobody  de- 
nies, that  bapto  sometimes  means  to  plunge  I  It  does 
mean  to  plunge,  in  many  places  in  profane  Greek,  but 
it  does  not  appear  that  it  ever  has  that  meaning  m  Scrip- 
ture. 

It  means  also  to  dip,  as  distinct  from  plunging — a 
partial  immersion  being  frequently  intended  by  the 
term. 

It  sometimes  means,  moreover,  to  steep  or  imbue — to 
dye,  stain,  or  color,  no  matter  by  what  process. 

It  also  signifies  to  wet,  moisten,  or  sprinkle..  Thus 
u  Nebuchadnezzar  was  driven  from  men,  and  did  eat  grass 
as  oxen,  and  his  body  was  wet  with  the  dew  oi  heaven."' 
See  Daniel  iv.  33,  or  30  in  the  Septuagint,  and  Daniel  v. 
21,  in  both  of  which  places  the  word  is  £j3a<p£,  which  our 
translators  render  by  the  verb  wet.  Any  ehild  can  tell 
whether  Nebuchadnezzar  was  plunged  inio>  the  dew^  or 


94 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 


sprinkled  with  it*  Xo  matter  how  copious  it  'was,  he 
was  neither  plunged  nor  immersed  in  it.  The  Greek 
translators  knew  better  than  that.  They  knew  that  the 
copious  moisture  came  down  upon  the  person  of  the  un- 
happy monarch ;  yet  they  employ  the  word  ebaphe  to  ex- 
press this  action. 

But  as  this  term  is  never  used  of  the  Christian  ordi- 
nance, we  shall  dismiss  all  inquiry  about  its  meaning,  with 
this  simple  remark  :  that  if  the  primitive  word  bapto  has 
so  many  significations — one  of  which  is  to  sprinkle — it  is 
preposterous  to  confine  the  derivative,  baptizo,  to  one  sig- 
nification. 

The  truth  is,  baptizo,  baptisma,  and  baptismos,  imply 
plunging  the  whole  person  or  thing — dipping  a  part  of  it — 
immersing  the  whole  or  a  part,  with  or  without  plunging 
or  dipping — overwhelming,  by  bringing  water  over  the 
person  or  thing. 

Thus  Aristotle  speaks  of  certain  u  uninhabited  lands, 
which  at  the  ebb-tide  are  not  overflowed,  ^d^-ftf  s c£cu  ;  but 
when  the  tide  is  full  the  coast  is  quite  inundated."  In  this 
case,  was  the  land  plunged  into  the  sea,  or  did  the  sea 
overwhelm  the  land  ?  Was  the  subject  applied  to  the 
element,  or  was  the  element  applied  to  the  subject  ?  Who 
does  not  see  that,  no  matter  how  much  water  there  was, 
the  land  was  neither  plurjged  nor  dipped  into  it  ? 

The  word  means,  moreover,  washing,  cleansing,  or 
purifying,  by  whatever  mode.  Thus  Judith  (c.  xii.  7) 
"  washed  herself  in  a  fountain  of  water  by  the  carap." 
She  might,  indeed,  have  plunged  into  the  fountain, 
if  it  was  large  enough,  to  wash  herself ;  but  the  passage 
has  nothing  to  do  with  the  mode,  only  with  the  fact 
of  her  washing — hence  it  is  said  in  the  ninth  verse, 


*  We  never  heard  of  any  one's  being  dipped  in  dew,  or  with  it,  ex- 
cept Milton's  Comus : — 

"And  though  not  mortal,  jet  a  cold  shudd'ring  dew 
Dips  me  all  o'er." 
Not  being  "  mortal,"  however,  we  cannot  reason  from  hi3  case  to  that 
of  Febuchadnezzar. 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED.  95 


*  so  she  came  in  clean. "  It  is  not,  indeed,  likely  that 
she  was  so  immodest  as  to  plunge  into  a  fountain  in  the 
soldiers'  camp.  She,  doubtless,  applied  the  water  of  the 
fountain  to  her  person,  in  the  usual  mode  of  performing 
ablution.  Indeed  the  text  implies  as  much,  Iparitigsfo  sv 
tffj  riapspPohijj  sriv  iy\$  riTjyqs  nov  vhano$,  u  she  baptized  her- 
self in  the  camp,  at  the  spring  of  water/'*  If  she 
plunged  herself  at  all,  she  plunged  herself  into  the  spring, 
and  not  at  it ;  but  the  text  says,  she  washed  herself  at 
the  spring,  not  in  it.  The  soldiers  who  drank  out  of  it 
would  scarcely  have  allowed  her  to  do  that. 

The  word  has  a  similar  meaning,  though  with  a  cere- 
monial application,  in  another  place  of  the  Apocrypha, 
Ecclus.  xxxiv.  25:  u  He  that  washeth  himself  after  the 
touching  of  a  dead  body,  if  he  touch  it  again,  what 
availeth  his  washing  V9  The  word  rendered  washeth  is 
paritigo/xsvos,  baptizeth )  and  the  word  rendered  washing, 
is  xoufpo,  from  jlovq,  to  cleanse  or  purify.  The  meaning 
therefore,  of  (Sarcngo^svo^  arib  vsxpov,  "  baptized  from  a 
dead  body,"  is  not  immersed  from  a  dead  body,  nor 
bathed,  nor  sprinkled  from  it,  but  cleansed  from  it — its 
touch  having  communicated  legal  defilement.  Compare 
Num.  xix. ;  Heb.  ix. 

In  this  sense,  bajptismos  and  haptisma  are  invariably 
used  when  they  refer  to  the  Jewish  and  Christian  ordi- 
nances, as  we  have  fully  shown. 

And  let  it  be  remembered,  that  we  are  to  seek  for  the 
meaning  of  scriptural  terms  in  the  Scriptures  themselves. 
In  this  respect,  as  in  many  others,  the  Bible  is  to  be  its 
own  authoritative  interpreter.  We  are  not  so  much  con- 
cerned to  know  in  what  sense  Homer  or  Aristophanes, 
Josephus  or  Philo,  employed  a  term  which  the  Holy 
Ghost  has  seen  fit  to  incorporate  into  the  vocabulary  of 


*  The  preposition  em,  governing  the  genitive,  means,  upon,  at,  near, 
hy,  and  the  like,  according  to  the  context:  Thus  Matt.  vi.  10.  "uj  iv 
ovpavai,  xai  fat  rrjg  yr)g,  as  in  heaven,  so  also  upon  the  earth."  Compare 
Matt.  vi.  19  ;  xvi.  19, •  xxiv.  30;  xxvi.  64;  Luke  xxii.  40  :  "  And  when 
he  was  at  the  place,"  not  in  the  Mount  of  Olives,  hut  in  the  garden  at 
its  base. 


96 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 


Cljistianity — the  question  is,  how  did  the  Holy  Ghost 
employ  it? 

The  word  xvpcos,  7curios,  is  derived  by  some  from  the 
Hebrew  cheres,  the  sun.  This  luminary  being  considered 
the  ruler  of  the  heavens,  worshipped  by  the  heathens 
under  the  title  of  melek,  king,  or  baal,  lord,  the  word 
was  appropriated  to  express  the  idea  of  authority.  But  as 
proprietorship  usually  acccompanies  authority,  the  word  is 
used  to  express  that  idea,  whether  the  person  to  whom  it  is 
applied  actually  possesses  authority  or  not.  As  authority 
and  property  gain  respect,  the  word  was  eventually  em- 
ployed to  express  this  idea,  apart  from  all  reference  to  its 
primary  import.  When  Mary  Magdalene  addressed  by 
the  title  kurios,  a  person  whom  she  supposed  to  be  the 
gardener,  she  did  not  think  that  that  humble  functionary 
was  the  proprietor  of  the  premises,  or  the  emperor  of 
Rome,  or  the  Ruler  of  the  universe,  or  her  own  divine 
Master,  of  whom  she  was  in  quest,  and  to  whom  the  title 
is  applied  a  thousand  times  in  the  New  Testament.  Nor 
would  the  gardener,  had  he  been  the  party  addressed, 
have  been  at  all  puzzled  to  find  out  what  idea  she  intended 
to  convey  in  the  use  of  the  compellation. 

When  an  Englishman  talks  about  the  king,  he  never 
thinks  of  the  derivation  of  the  title  from  the  Saxon  cyng, 
and  the  German  konig,  or  of  the  primary  meaning  of  the 
word.  He,  perhaps,  does  not  even  know  that  it  originally 
expressed  the  ideas  of  wisdom  and  power.  He  knows 
that  in  his  own  nation,  for  a  thousand  years,  it  has  ex- 
pressed no  other  idea  than  that  of  monarchal  sovereignty, 
whether  it  be  lodged  in  the  person  of  Alfred  the  wise, 
or  Charles  the  fool,  John  the  feeble,  or  William  the 
brave.  And  no  one  is  misled  by  this  use  of  the  term. 
Moreover,  he  who  would  explore  the  whole  world  of  Teu- 
tonic and  Scandinavian  literature,  to  collect  apt  citations 
in  proof  that  the  word  primarily  expressed  the  ideas  of 
wisdom  and  power,  and  would  thence  argue  that  it  al- 
ways expresses  those  ideas  when  employed  in  the  statute 
books  of  Great  Britain,  would  be  deemed,  forsooth,  a 
cunning  antiquary,  and  a  powerful  reasoner,  a  perfect 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 


97 


king  in  the  realm  of  etymology.  He  would  not,  how- 
ever, be  alone  in  his  glory. 

The  term  Ttvsv^a,  in  heathen  Greek,  means  merely 
wind  or  breath ;  and  the  term  ayys%o$,  means  simply  a 
news-man  or  messenger,  and  both  words  are  sometimes 
used  in  these  senses  in  the  New  Testament.  But  no  im- 
mersionist,  we  presume,  would  translate  John  iii.  5,  6, 
"  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of  wind,  he  canrot 
outer  into  the  kingdom  of  God.  That  which  is  born  s>f 
the  flesh  is  flesh ;  and  that  which  is  born  of  the  windy 
is  wind  /"  Or  Acts  xxiii.  8,  9  :  "  The  Sadducees  say 
that  there  is  no  resurrection,  neither  messenger  nor  wind, 
but  the  Pharisees  confess  both.  And  there  arose  a  great 
cry ;  and  the  Scribes  that  were  of  the  Pharisees'  part 
arose,  and  strove,  saying,  We  find  no  evil  in  this  man ; 
but  if  a  wind  or  a  messenger  hath  spoken  to  him,  let  us 
not  fight  against  God/'  Are  these  renderings  preposte- 
rous ?  Immersionists  admit  that  they  are  ;  yet  according 
to  profane  Greek,  they  are  strictly  proper.  The  notion 
of  a  spiritual  being  would  never  have  been  suggested  to 
an  ancient  Greek  by  the  word  pneumay  nor  that  of  a 
celestial  intelligence  by  the  word  angelos. 

Immersionists  themselves  do  not  scruple  to  call  the 
other  ordinance  of  Christianity,  Kvpiaxbv  Ssixvov,  The  Lord's 
Supper,  albeit  they  do  not  take  an  ounce  of  bread,  or  a 
spoonful  of  wine ;  and  what  they  do  receive  they  do  not 
take  in  the  posture  of  the  Jews  at  their  Passover,  or  in 
that  of  Christ  and  his  disciples  at  the  first  celebration  of 
the  Christian  ordinance.  The  term,  moreover,  is  always 
used  in  Scripture  for  a  full  meal,  the  principal  meal  of 
the  day,  or  a  festal  entertainment.  Matt,  xxiii.  6  ;  Mark 
vi.  21 ;  Luke  xiv.  12 ;  and  yet  it  is  applied,  and  that 
correctly,  to  an  ordinance  in  which  not  a  mouthful  of 
food  is  eaten. 

Suppose  the  word  bapto  originally  meant  dipy  how 
easily  would  it  take  the  meaning  of  dye,  color,  stain,  im- 
bue, from  the  fact  that  articles  were  usually  dyed  by  dip- 
ping and  saturating  them  in  a  coloring  fluid.  Having 
thus  received  this  signification,  it  would  afterwards  be  sc 
6 


98 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 


used  without  any  reference  to  the  fact  of  dipping,  ancl 
when,  indeed,  the  dyeing  was  effected  by  some  other 
method. 

The  Scripture  affords  us  a  pertinent  example  :  u  And 
I  saw  heaven  opened,  and  behold  a  white  horse ;  and  he 
that  sat  upon  him  was  called  Faithful  and  True,  and  in 
righteousness  he  doth  judge  and  make  war.  His  eyes 
were  a?  a  flame  of  fire,  and  on  his  head  were  many 
crowns ;  and  he  had  a  name  written,  that  no  man  knew 
but  he  himself.  And  he  was  clothed  with  a  vesture 
stained  with  blood  ;  and  his  name  is  called  the  Word  of 
God.  And  the  armies  which  were  in  heaven  followed 
him  upon  white  horses,  clothed  in  fine  linen,  white  and 
clean.  And  out  of  his  mouth  goeth  a  sharp  sword,  that 
with  it  he  should  smite  the  nations ;  and  he  shall  rule 
them  with  a  rod  of  iron;  and  he  treadeth  the  wine-press 
of  the  fierceness  and  wrath  of  Almighty  God,"  Rev. 
xix.  11-15. 

The  word  rendered  by  our  translators  dipped,  and  which 
we  have  rendered  stained,  is  jSs^a/x^svov,  bebammenon,  a 
participle  of  bapto.  The  vesture  was  not  dipped  in  blood 
when  St.  John  saw  it — it  was  stained  with  it)  nor  does 
it  appear  that  the  stains  were  made  by  previous  dipping, 
but  rather  by  sprinkling ,  according  to  the  parallel  passage 
in  Isaiah  lxiii.  1-3  :  "  Who  is  this  that  cometh  from 
Edom,  with  dyed  garments  from  Bozrah  ?  this  that  is  glo- 
rious in  his  apparel,  travelling  in  the  greatness  of  his 
strength  ?  I  that  speak  in  righteousness,  mighty  to  save. 
Wherefore  art  thou  red  in  thine  apparel,  and  thy  gar- 
ments like  him  that  treadeth  in  the  winefat?  I  have 
trodden  the  winepress  alone ;  and  of  the  people  there  was 
none  with  me ;  for  I  will  tread  them  in  mine  anger,  and 
trample  them  in  my  fury;  and  their  blood  shall  be 
sprinkled  upon  my  garments,  and  I  will  stain  all  my  rai- 
ment." 

The  derivative  baptizo  may  have  primarily  meant  to 
dip ;  but  as  things  were  frequently  dipped  to  be  washed 
and  purified,  the  term  readily  acquired  this  latter  mean- 
ing, and  it  is  thus  used  in  reference  to  a  literal  cleansing 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 


99 


or  a  ceremonial  purification,  effected  by  pouring  or  affu- 
sion, dipping  being  out  of  the  question. 

In  order  to  express  those  glorious  truths  which  for  ages 
have  been  hid  from  the  world,  the  inspired  penmen  found 
it  necessary  either  to  invent  new  terms,  or  to  use  old  ones 
in  an  appropriated  sense.  And  we  may  very  well  sup- 
pose that  the  words  which  the  Holy  Ghost  teacheth  are 
as  suitable  as  any  that  man  could  select,  and  we  may  be 
sure  that  he  has  not  left  us  without  the  means  of  discover- 
ing the  sense  in  which  they  are  employed.  By  keeping 
our  minds  free  from  prejudice— by  a  careful  study  of  the 
Scriptures,  comparing  spiritual  things  with  spiritual,  ra- 
ther than  profane — and  by  seeking  light  and  direction 
from  the  Source  of  wisdom — we  shall  not  be  in  much 
danger  of  receiving  a  pagan  infection  when  we  read  in  the 
New  Testament  of  Theos  and  Tartaros,  or  of  being  per- 
verted to  popery  when  we  read  of  the  altar  and  the  cross, 
or  of  being  plunged  into  the  water  when  we  read  the 
command,  H  Repent  and  be  baptized/7 

What  theological  term  is  there,  which  was  previously 
used  in  a  secular  sense  by  profane  authors,  that  did  not 
receive  some  modification  in  its  import  when  appropriated 
to  the  service  of  the  sanctuary  ?  And  did  not  this  take 
place  ex  necessitate  f  Indeed,  this  involves  a  hermeneuti- 
cal  principle  of  immense  importance  in  the  interpretation 
of  the  Holy  Scriptures;  and  one,  too,  on  which  immer- 
sionists  themselves  are  wont  to  proceed  in  the  investiga- 
tion of  other  subjects ;  and,  verily,  if  they  did  not  they 
would  plunge  themselves  into  greater  absurdities  than 
those  which  we  are  now  exposing,  nay,  into  such  blasphe- 
mies as  we  are  quite  sure  we  shall  never  have  occasion  to 
denounce.  * 

2.  It  is  sometimes  urged  that  the  prepositions  used  in 
connection  with  the  word  baptism  and  its  cognates  imply 
immersion.  These  prepositions  are  iv  and  si$,  artb  and  ex. 
Thus  John  baptized  iv,  in  Jordan  :  Philip  and  the  eunuch 
went  down  both,  «jfj  into  the  water :  Jesus  came  up,  anb, 
out  o/the  water  :  they  both  came  up,  ix,  out  of  the  water. 

To  all  this  we  reply,  that  we  do  not  affect  arguments 


100 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 


based  upon  grammatical  niceties.  Besides,  those  prepo- 
sitions are  of  various  meaning. 

Thus  m}  according  to  Parkhurst,  has  fourteen  different 
meanings  in  the  New  Testament.  In  more  than  one  hun- 
dred places  it  is  rendered  at, — in  one  hundred  and  fifty 
others  it  is  rendered  with,  which  is  its  proper  meaning 
when  found  in  connection  with  baptism,  as  in  every  in- 
stance, except  Mark  i.  9,  it  is  used  with  a  dative,  which 
does  not  express  the  object  of  an  action,  but  the  instru- 
ment by  which  it  is  effected.  "I  indeed  baptize  you,  h 
vScrti,  with  icater,  but  he  shall  baptize  you  &v  Ttvsvpati 
dyt9,  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire/'  Matt.  iii.  11. 
We  know  they  were  not  plunged  in  the  Holy  Ghost  and 
in  fire,  by  the  pentecostal  baptism,  but  they  were  affused 
with  the  Spirit. 

The  particle  sl$  has  fifteen  meanings  assigned  it.  It 
primarily  denotes  motion  towards  an  object.  It  sometimes 
means  towards,  toith  respect  to,  as,  "  I  would  have  you 
wise,  f^,  unto  that  which  is  good,  and  simple,  si%  concern- 
ing, or  towards,  that  which  is  evil."  Rom.  xvi.  19.  "Use 
hospitality  one  to,  towards,  another."  1  Pet.  iv.  9. 
Sometimes  it  means  at :  u  Philip  was  found,  s  1$,  at  Azo- 
tus."  Acts  viii.  40.  Sometimes  it  means  on:  "Put  a 
ring,  on  his  hand," — not  surely  into  it — "  and  shoes, 
n$,  on  his  feet," — not  surely  into  them. 

When  sl$  denotes  into,  it  is  used  before  the  noun  as 
well  as  before  the  verb.  Thus  :  "  they  entered  into  the 
house  of  Lydia" — sfofy&w  sis  4%*  AuStW.  Acts  xvi.  40.  So 
Acts  ix.  17:  "Ananias  entered  into  the  house" — riGrfKOw 
d$  trp  oixiav.  Had  the  preposition  been  used  merely  be- 
fore the  noun  and  not  also  before  the  verb,  it  would  have 
simply  expressed  motion  towards  the  house,  and  not  en- 
trance into  it. 

Agreeably  to  this  rule,  if  St.  Luke  had  intended  to  say 
that  Philip  went  into  the  water  with  the  eunuch,  he  would 
nave  put  the  preposition  before  the  verb — there  being 
nothing  in  the  case  requiring  or  justifying  a  variation 
from  the  rule — whereas,  he  simply  places  the  preposition 
before  the  noun — "  they  went  down  both,  eis,  to  the  water, 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 


101 


and  he  baptized  him."  The  circumstances,  too,  sustain 
this  view.  It  is  very  improbable  that  they  found  a  river, 
lake,  deep  pond,  cistern,  or  tank,  u  in  the  way  which  goeth 
down  from  Jerusalem  to  Gaza,  which  is  desert."  In 
fact,  the  eunuch  seemed  surprised  to  find  any  water  at  all 
in  so  arid  a  region ;  for  upon  discovering  it  he  ejaculated, 
lI8ov  'vSup,  "  Behold  water  !"  He  had  been  reading  that 
part  of  Isaiah  which  predicted  that  the  Messiah  "  should 
sprinkle  many  nations,"  and  he  desired  to  receive  the  or- 
dinance which,  as  Philip  doubtless  informed  him,  sym- 
bolizes the  spiritual  purification  to  which  the  prophet 
referred,  and  the  smallest  spring  gurgling  from  the  foot 
of  a  rock  would  subserve  that  purpose.  Accordingly, 
both  Philip  and  the  eunuch  went  down  to  it,  and  the 
former  baptized  the  latter.  There  is  not  the  slightest  in- 
timation that  he  did  it  by  immersion,  but  there  are  the 
strongest  presumptions  that  he  did  not :  taking  the  pas- 
sage (Acts  viii.)  in  connection  with  other  places  of  Scrip- 
ture, it  is  evident  the  eunuch  was  not  immersed. 

The  preposition  ix  primarily  denotes  motion  from  a 
place,  in  almost  any  mode.  Parkhurst  assigns  it  seven 
meanings  in  the  New  Testament.  In  Eom.  i.  4,  it  means 
by :  "  And  declared  to  be  the  Son  of  God  with  power,  ac- 
cording to  the  Spirit  of  holiness,  ix,  by  the  resurrection 
from  the  dead."  In  Matt.  xix.  20,  it  means/rom,  in  regard 
to  time :  "  All  these  things  have  I  kept  from  my  youth 
up."  It  is  used  in  a  similar  way  in  regard  to  place  :  "  he 
riseth  from  supper,"  John  xiii.  4.  "  And  when  they 
were  come  up  from  the  water,"  Acts  viii.  39.  It  is  ab- 
surd to  give  it  a  different  meaning  in  those  places. 

The  preposition  anb  has  fifteen  meanings  in  the  New 
Testament.  Its  primary  import  is  from.  "  So  all  the 
generations  from  Abraham,"  Matt.  i.  17.  "Who  hath 
warned  you  to  flee  from  the  wrath  to  come  V*  u  Then 
cometh  Jesus  from  Galilee  to  Jordan."  "And  Jesus 
when  he  was  baptized  went  up  straightway,  arto,  from  the 
water,"  Matt.  iii.  7,  13,  16.  There  was  no  more  going 
out  o/the  water  in  this  case  than  there  was  fleeing  out  of 
the  wrath  to  come  in  the  case  before  mentioned. 


102 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 


We  thus  find,  upon  examining  into  the  force  of  these 
formidable  prepositions,  that,  instead  of  giving  any  sup- 
port to  the  cause  of  immersion,  they  actually  weaken  it. 
and  subserve  the  opposite  interest.  But,  we  repeat,  we 
do  not  lay  much  stress  upon  grammatical  niceties  of  this 
description,  as  we  have  a  more  sure  word  of  prophecy—- 
a  world  of  irrefutable  arguments  on  which  we  rest  with 
perfect  confidence. 

3.  Those  who  contend  for  immersion,  as  the  exclusive 
mode  of  baptism,  lay  great  stress  upon  the  fact  that  John 
the  Baptist  administered  the  ordinance  in  Jordan  and  at 
Enon,  where  there  was  much  water.  Why  did  he  repair 
to  such  places  if  it  was  not  to  immerse  his  proselytes  ? 

To  this  we  reply,  If  it  could  be  proved  that  John  bap- 
tized by  immersion,  and  that  Jesus  himself  was  immersed, 
this  would  not  prove  that  the  Christian  ordinance  must 
be  administered  by  immersion. 

John's  baptism  was  not  Christian  baptism.  It  sus- 
tained to  it  no  other  than  a  preliminary  relation.  As 
Justin  Martyr  says,  "  It  was  a  prelude  to  the  grace  of  the 
gospel' ' — Evangelicee  gratise  prseludium.  Or,  in  the 
language  of  Augustin,  it  was  "  a  forerunning  baptism" — 
yrecursorium  minister ium.  u  It  was/'  says  Chrysostom, 
"as  it  were  a  bridge,  which  made  a  way  from  the  baptism 
of  the  Jews  to  that  of  our  Saviour :  it  was  superior  to  the 
former,  but  inferior  to  the  latter." 

Christian  baptism  was  not  instituted  until  after  the  re- 
surrection of  Christ.  Its  subjects  are  baptized  in9  -or  to, 
the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  which  was  not  the  case  with  the  subjects  of  John's 
baptism. 

Hence  the  twelve  disciples  found  by  Paul  at  Ephesus 
were  baptized  with  Christian  baptism,  though  they  had 
been  baptized  before  with  John's  baptism.  This  so  effec- 
tually determines  the  question  that  some  immersionists 
have  resorted  to  a  subterfuge  to  evade  its  force.  They 
wish  to  insinuate  that  those  disciples  of  John  had  been 
baptized  with  Christian  baptism,  but  did  not  know  it 
until  Paul  informed  them  of  the  fact !    Hence  they  read 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 


103 


the  passage  thus  :  "  When  they  heard  they  were  baptized 
in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  when  Paul  had  laid 
his  hands  upon  them,  the  Holy  Ghost  came  on  them." 
This  is  a  desperate  resort.  The  case  narrated  by  the 
sacred  historian  is  plainly  this  :  The  apostle  found  certain 
disciples  at  Ephesus,  of  whom  he  inquired  whether  or 
not  they  had  received  the  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  They 
told  him  they  were  not  apprized  that  those  gifts  had  been 
yet  imparted.  The  apostle  asked  them  what  baptism 
they  had  received.  They  answered,  John's.  He  replied, 
that  John's  baptism  bound  them  to  repentance,  and  also 
to  become  the  disciples  of  the  Messiah  when  he  should 
some.  Consistency  therefore  required  that  they  should 
make  a  formal  profession  of  Christian  diseipleship,  which 
they  accordingly  did,  being  baptized  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord  Jesus,  or  by  Christian  baptism.  Then  followed  the 
imposition  of  the  apostle's  hands,  and  the  impartation  of 
the  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  in  the  case  of  other  Chris- 
tian converts. 

It  is  hard  to  imagine  a  plainer  case  than  this ;  and 
nothing  but  an  absolute  exigency  could  force  men  to  tor- 
ture the  passage  into  another  sense.  In  the  language  of 
an  eloquent  and  honest  immersionist,  Robert  Hall,  it  may. 
well  be  said :  "  In  the  whole  compass  of  theological  con- 
troversy it  would  be  difficult  to  assign  a  stronger  instance 
of  the  force  of  prejudice  in  obscuring  a  plain  matter  of 
fact." 

But  why  seek  to  evade  the  truth  ?  It  is  of  no  avail  to 
say  that  Jesus  himself  was  baptized  by  John,  and  there- 
fore it  must  have  been  Christian  baptism,  which  the  latter 
administered.  What !  was  Christ  baptized  unto  repent- 
ance ?  was  he  baptized  in  his  own  name  ?  Did  his  submis- 
sion to  baptism  symbolize  his  sanctification,  and  pledge  the 
grace  which  sanctifies  and  the  moral  purity  which  the 
ordinance  indicates  ?  Does  not  this  border  on  blasphemy  ? 
Some  affirm  that  Christ's  baptism,  like  his  death,  was 
vicarious,  and  therefore  may  be  viewed  as  a  baptism  of 
repentance — as  if  Christ  was  considered  a  sinner,  and 
therefore  under  obligation  to  repent  and  to  receive  the 


104  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 


baptism  of  repentance  for  the  remission  of  sins.  Such  a 
substitutionary  baptism  would  supersede  the  baptism  of 
those  for  whom  Christ  received  it,  in  like  manner  as  his 
vicarious  death  exonerates  those  who  receive  the  atonement 
of  Christ  from  all  obligations  to  make  atonement  for  them- 
selves. The  actions  of  the  Saviour's  life  were  vicarious 
in  no  such  sense.  Such  a  principle  contains  the  essence 
of  the  rankest  Antinomianism.* 

To  say  that  John's  baptism  was  the  "  same  baptism 
which  we  Christians  take  in  the  church,"  "for  John  was 
sent  by  God  to  baptize,  and  there  is  but  one  baptism  in 
him,"  involves  a  palpable  non  seguitur  and  a  pitiful  petitio 
principii.  For  it  does  not  follow  that  John's  baptism  was 
Christian  baptism,  because  his  commission  was  divine; 
and  to  affirm  there  is  but  one  baptism,  is  not  to  reason, 
but  to  assume  the  point  in  question.  We  are  amazed  to 
see  such  logic  in  the  sermons  of  the  acute  and  eloquent 
old  Dean  of  St.  Paul's.  The  case,  however,  admits  of  no 
better. 

Some  of  the  fathers  taught  that  water  derived  a  kind 
of  fitness  for  a  Christian  ordinance  from  Christ's  baptism 
with  water — the  drift,  by  the  way,  of  that  ambiguous 
passage  in  the  Baptismal  Service  which  states  that  the 
baptism  of  Christ  "  did  sanctify  water  for  this  holy  sacra- 
ment." 

Thus  Epiphanius  says  that  Christ  was  baptized,  u  that 
the  waters  which  are  to  cleanse  us,  might  first  be  cleans- 
ed"— ut  aquce  nos  purgatora  priuz  per  ipjsum  purgarentur. 


*  We  are  surprised  to  find,  while  passing  this  work  through  the 
press,  that  this  opinion  is  endorsed  by  Mr.  Alford  in  his  Greek  Testa- 
ment, Matt.  iii.  13 :  "  Why  should  the  Lord,  who  was  without  sin, 
have  come  to  a  baptism  of  repentance  ?  Because  he  was  made  sin  for 
us  :  for  the  same  reason  as  he  suffered  the  curse  of  the  law.  It  became 
him,  being  in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh,  to  go  through  those  appointed 
rites  and  purifications  which  belonged  to  that  flesh.  There  is  no  more 
strangeness  in  his  having  been  baptized  by  John,  than  in  his  keeping 
the  passover.  The  one  rite,  as  the  other,  belonged  to  sinners — and 
among  the  transgressors  he  was  numbered."  According  to  this,  no 
man  is  under  any  more  obligation  to  repent  and  receive  baptism  for 
himself  than  he  is  to  "  suffer  the  curse  of  the  law  Vs  Christ  has  done 
the  former  as  well  as  suffered  the  latter  for  him ! 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 


105 


A.  rhetorical  expression,  innocent  enough  so  far  as  we  can 
see — indeed,  somewhat  pretty.  It  claims,  however,  no 
scriptural  authority.  Lavit  aquas  ipse,  non  aquce  ipsum  : 
a  pleasant  and  harmless  conceit — "  he  baptized  the  waters, 
not  the  waters  him."  Chrysostom  says :  "  The  Lord  of 
angels  went  down  into  the  stream  of  Jordan,  and  sancti- 
fying the  nature  of  water,  healed  the  whole  world. " 

But  who  does  not  see  that  Christ  was  baptized  on  his 
entrance  upon  his  ministry,  according  to  the  custom  of  re- 
ligious functionaries  under  the  Jewish  dispensation  ?  The 
priests  were  washed  with  water  upon  their  assumption  of  the 
sacerdotal  office ;  and  accordingly  as  the  great  High  Priest 
of  our  profession,  he  submitted  to  this  ceremonial  initia- 
tion into  his  office.  The  Jewish  priests  were  consecrated 
at  the  age  of  thirty — the  very  age  at  which  our  Lord  re- 
ceived baptism.  By  this  public  designation  to  his  office 
he  was  made  "  manifest  to  Israel/'  as  the  "  High  Priest 
over  the  house  of  God."  This  is  the  more  evident  from 
the  fact  that  "  God  anointed  Jesus  of  Nazareth  with  the 
Holy  Ghost  and  with  power,"  at  the  very  time  that  John 
baptized  him,  thereby  placing  the  authentic  seal  of  di- 
vinity upon  his  legation.*  As  Christ  was  "  made  under  the 
law  to  redeem  them  that  were  under  the  law,"  he  submitted 
to  circumcision  on  the  eighth  day,  thereby  becoming  a 
legal  member  of  the  Jewish  church.  He  received  the  cere- 
monial designation  to  his  ministry  in  conformity  with  his 
design  to  fulfil  all  righteousness — to  ratify  every  divine 


*  Mr.  Alford,  in  the  note  on  Matt.  iii.  13,  in  his  recently  issued  Greek 
Testament,  remarks :  "  I  cannot  suppose  the  baptism  to  have  been 
sought  by  our  Lord  merely  to  honor  John,  (Kuinoel,)  or  as  knowing 
that  it  would  be  the  occasion  of  a  divine  recognition  of  his  Messiah- 
ship,  (Paulus,)  and  thus  preordained  by  God,  (Meyer;)  but  bond  fide, 
as  bearing  the  infirmities  and  carrying  the  sorrows  of  mankind,  and 
thus  beginning  here  the  triple  baptism  of  water,  fire,  and  blood,  two 
parts  of  which  were  now  accomplished,  and  of  the  third  of  which  he 
himself  speaks,  Luke  xii.  50,  and  the  beloved  apostle,  1  John  v.  8, 
where  itve$pta's*nvp — [the  Spirit  corresponds  to  fire.]  His  baptism,  as  it 
was  the  Lord's  closing  act  of  obedience  under  the  law,  in  his  hitherto 
concealed  life  of  legal  submission,  his  fulfilling  all  righteousness,  so  it 
was  the  solemn  inauguration  and  anointing  for  the  higher  official  lift 
of  mediatorial  satisfaction  which  was  now  opening  upon  him" 
5* 


10(3 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 


institution.  In  like  manner  he  attended  to  all  the  feasts 
of  *he  Jewish  church,  and  never  neglected  the  temple 
worship.  It  was  necessary  that  he  should  thus  recognize 
the  diviue  legation  of  Moses — for  Moses  spoke  of  him — and 
the  divine  original  of  his  dispensation,  because  it  contained 
the  rudiments  of  that  which  he  came  to  establish. 

But  his  baptism  was  no  more  a  Christian  act  than  was 
his  circumcision ;  and  the  former  is  exemplary  to  us  in 
no  other  sense  than  the  latter :  in  neither  is  he  our  ex- 
emplar, except  in  regard  to  the  spirit  of  prompt  obedience 
to  law,  which  like  him  we  should  always  exhibit.  If 
therefore  John  immersed  Christ  it  does  not  follow  that 
we  must  be  immersed,  any  more  than  that  we  must  wait 
till  we  are  thirty  years  of  age  before  we  are  baptized. 

The  foregoing  considerations  make  sad  work  with  a 
large  amount  of  poetry  and  sentimentalisni  about  u  follow- 
ing Christ"  into  the  water,  and  being  buried  with  him  in 
his  "  liquid  grave" — all  of  which  may  do  well  enough  to 
beguile  unstable  souls,  but  it  certainly  smacks  more  of 
proselyting  clap-trap  than  of  scriptural  testimony  or 
rational  argument. 

The  localities  of  John's  baptism  do  not  prove  that  he 
administered  it  by  immersion,  but  rather  the  contrary. 

The  Baptist's  home  was  not  in  the  city,  but  in  the  wil- 
derness of  Judea.  As  his  ministry  was  attended  by  the 
people  of  "Jerusalem  and  all  Judea,  and  all  the  region 
round  about  Jordan,"  it  was  perfectly  natural  that  he 
should  choose  a  locality  near  the  river,  as  the  principal 
theatre  of  his  ministry.  He  would  have  done  this  had  he 
circumcised  the  people  instead  of  baptizing  them.  But 
as  he  baptized  them,  he  wanted  water  for  the  purpose,  and 
he  would  of  course  select  a  place  convenient  to  it — no  very 
easy  thing  to  do  in  that  desert  region — hence  he  repaired 
to  the  river. 

In  only  one  place,  Mark  i.  9,  is  it  said  that  he  baptized 
"in  Jordan,"  e£$  tbv  "lopddi^v,  Jordan  being  put  in  the  ac- 
cusative case  :  in  all  other  places  the  dative  case  is  used, 
expressing  the  instrument  or  matter  of  baptism  :  "  I  bap« 
tize  you  with  water — he  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 


107 


Ghost."  (i  And  were  all  baptized  of  him  in  the  river 
Jordan,"  lv  *c>  lopbdvq  noTa/ny — that  is,  with  the  water  of 
the  river.    This  is  the  force  of  the  dative  case. 

When,  therefore,  it  is  said  that  Jesus  was  baptized  in 
Jordan,  the  meaning  obviously  is,  that  he  was  baptized  at 
or  near  the  river,  and  as  the  other  texts  show,  with  the 
water  thereof.  The  preposition  di  means  at,  as  well  as 
in  or  into.  It  marks  simply  the  place  where  John  bap- 
tized, not  the  mode  of  his  baptism.  Hence  the  same 
preposition  is  used  in  John  ix.  40,  which  states  that  Je- 
sus "went  away  again  beyond  Jordan  into,  eis,  to,  the 
place  where  John  at  first  baptized,  and  there  he  abode." 
Certainly  not  in  the  river.  He  did  not  plunge  himself 
into  the  river  and  make  that  his  abode  !  The  place  in 
which  John  baptized,  as  we  learn  from  John  i.  28,  was 
Bethabara,  or  Bethany,  a  town  beyond  Jordan,  near  the 
ford  or  ferry;  and  in  this  place  Jesus  sojourned  for  a 
short  time.  This  was  at,  or,  as  we  should  say,  on,  the 
river — which  would  be  in  fact  a  literal  and  correct  ren- 
dering of  the  text. 

In  carefully  studying  the  sacred  Scriptures,  we  are  fre- 
quently struck  with  the  force  of  an  apparently  casual  re- 
mark, as  in  the  case  before  us.  The  texts  which  we  have 
cited  from  John  absolutely  demonstrate  the  meaning  of 
the  passage  in  Mark  i.  9 — "  baptized  in  Jordan" — which, 
because  of  the  use  of  the  accusative  case,  might  otherwise 
be  considered  of  doubtful  import. 

As  it  regards  John's  baptizing  in  Enon,  near  to  Salim, 
because  there  was  much  water  there,  John  iii.  23,  it  is 
only  necessary  to  state  that  the  phrase,  vBata  7to?aa,means 
simply,  many  streams  or  springs,  and  not  a  river,  lake,  or 
pool,  and  no  such  body  of  water  has  ever  been  found  there, 
though  it  has  been  looked  for  by  travellers. 

The  phrase  is  obviously  expressive  of  plurality,  though 
perhaps  it  may  be  sometimes  susceptible  of  a  singularity 
of  construction.  It  is  used  in  the  Septuagint  for  the  He 
brew,  rendered  u  many  waters,"  as  in  Ps.  xviii.  16,  xciii. 
4 ;  Jer.  li.  13.    In  this  last  passage,  the  reference  is  tc 


108 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 


Babylon,  which  was  situated  upon  the  Euphrates  and  nu- 
merous canals,  lakes,  etc.,  called  in  Ps.  cxxxvii.,  "the 
rivers  of  Babylon."  So  the  Apocalyptic  Babylon  is  situ- 
ated upon  "  many  waters,"  that  is,  she  has  dominion  over 
peoples,  and  multitudes,  and  nations,  and  tongues.  Rev. 
xvii.    An  obvious  plurality. 

It  does  not  appear  that  there  was  any  "  fountain  of  On/' 
any  u  cavernous  spring,"  as  immersionists  phrase  it,  large 
enough  for  the  immersion  t>f  a  little  child.  But  if  there 
was,  it  does  not  follow  that  anybody  was  immersed  in  it. 
John  went  into  that  part  of  the  country  for  the  same  rea- 
son that  Jesus  went  into  it — not  to  immerse,  but  to  teach 
the  multitudes  and  to  baptize  them.  Few  places  in  that  wil- 
derness afforded  the  necessary  supplies  of  water,  hence 
John  baptized  in  Enon,  and  the  disciples  of  Jesus  also 
baptized  multitudes  somewhere  in  the  same  neighbour- 
hood, as  the  numerous  springs  afforded  facilities  for  the 
purpose.  The  candidates  could  arrange  themselves  along 
the  streams,  and  the  baptizer  could  have  ready  access  to 
them,  and  administer  the  ceremony  without  any  trouble. 
This  was  a  consideration  of  some  importance  wheu  so  many 
thousands  were  to  be  baptized. 

Besides,  the  water  of  these  springs  was  more  potable 
than  that  of  the  Jordan,  which  could  scarcely  be  drunk  at 
certain  seasons  of  the  year — a  circumstance  which  may 
have  induced  John  to  change  his  station;  albeit  if  he  im- 
mersed the  people,  he  would  have  remained,  at  the  latter 
place,  where  they  could  be  plunged  over  head  and  ears, 
which  they  could  not  be  in  the  multitudinous  streamlets 
of  Enon. 

The  proprieties  of  the  case  show  that  John  baptized  his 
proselytes  by  affusion,  and  not  by  immersion.  The  vast 
multitudes  that  went  out  into  the  wilderness  to  attend 
upon  the  ministry  of  John  could  not  have  been  immersed 
by  him.  It  would  have  been  a  gross  indecency  to  immerse 
them  naked  ;  and  it  would  have  been  a  dangerous  experi- 
ment to  immerse  them  in  their  clothes ;  and  it  is  too  vio- 
lent a  presumption  to  suppose  they  were  all  provided  with 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 


109 


baptismal  robes,*  or  a  change  of  apparel  of  any  sort  Im- 
mersion was  therefore  out  of  the  question. 

Moreover,  the  immersion  of  so  great  multitudes 
would  have  been  more  than  John  could  accomplish.  It 
would  have  forced  him  literally  to  make  his  abode  in  the 
river,  or  in  the  "  cavernous  spring"  near  Salim.  He 
would  have  had  no  time  to  search  for  locusts  and  wild 
honey,  or  to  eat  them  when  found — no  time  for  sleep — 
no  time  to  preach  repentance  to  the  multitudes,  to  hear 
their  confessions  of  sins,  or  to  prescribe  to  their  diversified 
cases )  but  day  and  night  in  the  water,  plunging,  plung- 
ing, plunging,  the  thousands  upon  thousands  that  flocked 
to  his  baptism  !  The  very  conception  is  preposterous. 
But,  baptizing,  as  we  see  he  did,  by  applying  the  element 
to  the  subject,  no  impossibility,  no  indelicacy,  no  exposure 
of  health  and  life,  was  involved.  Water  could  be  brought 
to  him  by  an  assistant,  or  he  could  place  the  subjects 
along  the  streams  of  Enon,  or  within  the  outermost  bank 
of  the  Jordan,  in  the  bed  of  the  river,  by  the  margin  of 
the  stream,  and  with  his  hand,  or  with  a  small  vessel,  or 
shell,  as  represented  in  ancient  pictures,  pour  it  upon 
them ;  or,  agreeably  to  the  Mosaic  ceremonial,  sprinkle  it 
upon  them  with  a  bunch  of  hyssop. 

We  have  thus  accompanied  the  immersionists  to  the 
wilderness  of  Judea,  and  have  found  John's  baptisteries 
altogether  too  large,  and  at  the  same  time  infinitely  too 
small,  for  their  plunging  purposes.  They  must  go  to  some 
other  church-yard  for  "  a  liquid  grave." 

4.  Great  stress  is  laid  by  immersionists  upon  Kom.  vi. 
4  :  "  Therefore  we  are  buried  with  him  by  baptism  into 
death;  that  like  as  Christ  was  raised  up  from  the  dead  by 


*  They  certainly  had  not  any  contrivances  like  those  described  in  an 
advertisement  before  us  :  "  Baptismal  pants,  expressly  designed  for 
baptizing  purposes — manufactured  from  Vulcanized  Metallic  Rubber 
Mcintosh  cloth,  warranted  perfectly  water-proof."  These,  we  dis- 
cover, are  offered  to  "  the  reverend  clergy  f  we  are  not  informed 
whether  itwould.be  lawful  for  the  subject,  as  well  as  the  administrator, 
to  be  encased  in  India-Rubber,  or  whether  there  be  any  similar  inven- 
tion for  those  who  stand  most  in  need  of  it. 


110 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 


the  glory  of  the  Father,  even  so  we  also  should  walk  in 
newness  of  life."  They  contend  that  this  text  makes 
baptism  emblematical  of  the  Saviour's  death,  burial,  and 
resurrection,  and  therefore  it  must  be  administered  by 
immersion  and  emersion.  And  they  not  unfrequently  in- 
dulge in  a  fine  phrensy  of  rhetoric  and  poetry  above  a 
liquid  grave  and — we  know  not  what.  But,  so  far  as  we 
understand  the  argument,  we  consider  it  utterly  worthless. 

We  do  not  suppose  with  some  that  the  apostle  has  no 
reference  in  this  passage  to  water  baptism.  We  believe 
he  does  refer  to  this  ordinance.  But  he  refers  to  it  as 
the  exponent  of  a  sanctifying  agency — the  outward  and 
visible  sign  of  an  inward  and  invisible  grace,  by  which 
we  realize  a  death  unto  sin  and  a  new  birth  unto  right- 
eousness. It  is  only  by  wrenching  the  fourth  verse  from 
its  connection  that  any  other  conclusion  can  be  reached ; 
and,  indeed,  we  do  not  see  how  it  can  be  even  thus  tor- 
tured into  the  expression  of  a  different  meaning. 

St.  Paul  is  showing  that  the  doctrine  of  justification  by 
faith  does  not  lead  to  licentiousness.  As  no  one  can  be 
justified  without  being  at  the  same  time  regenerated,  so 
no  one  can  be  regenerated  and  lead  an  unholy  life.  "  How 
shall  we  that  are  dead  to  sin  live  any  longer  therein  ?  Know 
ye  not  that  so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Jesus 
Christ  were  baptized  into  his  death  V  This  death  to  sin 
is  attributed  to  the  instrumentality  of  baptism,  as  baptism  is 
the  symbol  of  sanctifying  grace — one  of  the  means  through 
which  it  may  be  received — the  pledge,  on  the  part  of  God, 
of  its  impartation,  and  the  pledge,  on  the  part  of  the 
subject,  of  its  practical  development,  when  imparted. 
"  Therefore  we  are  buried  with  him  by  baptism  into  death  ; 
that,  like  as  Christ  was  raised  up  from  the  dead  by  the 
glory  of  the  Father,  even  so  we  also  should  walk  in  new- 
ness of  life/'    Can  any  thing  be  plainer  than  this  ? 

Here  is  no  reference  to  "the  mode  of  baptism — that  is 
foreign  from  the  apostle's  argument.  He  says  nothing 
about  being  "  buried  in  water" — how  can  a  momentary  dip 
nto  a  riyer,  fountain,  or  fish-pond,  express  a  burial  ? 

Nor  is  there  any  comparison  between  our  baptism  and  the 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 


Ill 


death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of  Christ.  How  can  im 
mersion  represent  the  death  of  Christ  on  the  cross  ?  And 
yet  the  apostle's  parallel  takes  in  the  crucifixion  of  Christ. 
"  For  if  we  have  been  planted  together  in  the  likeness  of  his 
death,  we  shall  be  also  in  the  likeness  of  his  resurrection  : 
knowing  this,  that  our  old  man  is  crucified  with  him,  that 
the  body  of  sin  might  be  destroyed,  that  henceforth  we 
should  not*  serve  sin.  For  je  that  is  dead  is  free  from 
sin.  Now  if  we  be  dead  with  Christ,  we  believe  that  we 
shall  also  live  with  him  :  knowing  that  Christ  being  raised 
from  the  dead  dieth  no  more,  death  hath  no  more  domi- 
nion over  him.  For  in  that  he  died,  he  died  unto  sin  once, 
but  in  that  he  liveth,  he  liveth  unto  God.  Likewise  reckon 
ye  also  yourselves  to  be  dead  in  deed  unto  sin,  but  alive 
unto  God  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord." 

The  parallel  here  instituted  by  the  apostle  is  not  between 
our  baptism  and  the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of 
Christ  f  but  it  is  between  our  mystical  death,  burial,  and 
resurrection  and  the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of 
Christ.  It  seems  an  insult  to  one's  understanding  to  at- 
tempt to  prove  this.  In  the  name  of  common  sense,  can 
the  apostle  mean  any  thing  else  ? 

The  correspondency  is  so  complete,  that  St.  Paul  says, 
"  we  are  planted  together,"  evfityvtoi,  closely  united  with 
Christy  in  the  likeness  of  his  death  and  resurrection. 
How  can  plunging  into  a  river  represent  this  ?  We  are 
crucified  with  Christ — how  can  immersion  represent  nail- 
ing to  a  cross  ?  Yet  this  assimilation  to  the  death,  burial, 
and  resurrection  of  Christ,  is  attributed  to  the  agency  of 
our  baptism — Siaiov  jSaTiTflafiato^ — baptism  being  a  symbol, 
seal,  and  instrument  of  sanctifying  grace. 

The  same  effect  is  attributed  in  other  places  to  faith,  of 
which  baptism  is  the  authorized  exponent.  "  For  ye  are 
all  the  children  of  God  by  faith  in  Christ  Jesus.  For  as 
many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized  into  Christ,  have  put 
on  Christ/'  "  I  am  crucified  with  Christ :  nevertheless 
I  live;  yet  not  I,  but  Christ  liveth  in  me;  and  the  life 
which  I  now  live  in  the  flesh,  I  live  by  the  faith  of  the 
Son  of  God."    Gal.  ii.  20 ;  in.  26,  27.    Compare  Gal 


112  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 


vi.  11  j  Phil.  iii.  8-11.    Thus  also  Col.  ii.  12  :  "  In  whonj 

also  ye  are  circumcised  with  the  circumcision  made  without 
hands,  in  putting  off  the  body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh,  by 
the  circumcision  of  Christ :  buried  with  him  in  baptism, 
wherein  also  ye  are  risen  with  him  through  the  faith  of 
the  operation  of  God,  who  hath  raised  him  from  the  dead." 
The  preposition  h}  governing  the  dative,  all  through  this 
passage,  denotes  the  agent  or  instrument  of  the  action 
specified,  and  has  the  force  of  by,  or  by  means  of — by 
whom  ye  are  circumcised — by  putting  off  the  body  of 
the  sins  of  the  flesh — by  the  circumcision  of  Christ — 
by  baptism — by  which  also  ye  are  risen  with  him.  Sancti- 
fication  is  here,  as  in  Romans,  set  forth  under  the  meta- 
phor of  dying  to  sin,  that  is,  separation  from  it — 
burial,  that  is,  a  complete  and  more  obvious  separation — 
and  resurrection,  that  is,  walking  in  newness  of  life.  All 
this  is  spiritually  and  really  effected  through  the  faith  of 
the  operation  of  God  and  by  the  circumcision  of  tie  heart 
by  the  Holy  Ghost,  of  which  baptism,  as  it  corresponds 
to  circumcision,  is  a  lively  symbol  and  pledge.  This  is 
the  manifest  teaching  of  the  apostle. 

That  St.  Paul  has  any  reference  to  the  mode  of  baptism 
in  these  passages  is  a  violent  presumption.  When  did 
Christ  say  that  he  designed  baptism  to  represent  his  death, 
burial,  and  resurrection  ?  He  appointed  the  Eucharist  for 
this  purpose;  but  never  baptism.  Christian  baptism,  of 
course,  implies  faith  in  those  great  facts  of  Christianity, 
but  it  no  more  represents  them  than  it  represents  the  in- 
carnation— nor  was  it  instituted  with  any  such  design.  If 
it  had  been,  baptism  by  sprinkling  or  pouring  would  best 
set  forth  the  Saviour's  death,  as  it  is  said,  "he  poured  out 
his  soul  unto  death,"  and  his  blood  is  called  "  the  blood 
of  sprinkling."  But  how  can  immersion  represent  his 
death  ?  It  is  a  sorry  symbol  of  burial  and  resurrection — 
no  symbol  at  all  of  death — and  not  appointed  to  represent 
any  thing  whatever  in  the  Christian  religion.  To  foist  it 
into  the  passages  under  consideration  is  to  obscure  the 
apostle's  meaning,  otherwise  sufficiently  clear,  and  to 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 


113 


weaken  his  argument,  otherwise  pertinent,  cogent,  and 
conclusive. 

Immersionists  maintain  that  John's  disciples  received 
Christian  baptism — were  they  then  aware  that  their  bap- 
tism represented  the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of 
Christ  ?  Did  they  know  any  thing  about  those  stupen- 
dous things,  of  which  even  the  apostles  were  for  a  long 
time  ignorant  ?  No  one  will  affirm  that  they  did.  Were 
they  then  baptized  for — they  knew  not  what  ?  Dying 
with  Christ,  by  an  immersional  crucifixion — we  must  coin 
a  beautiful  word  for  this  bright  idea — buried  with  Christ 
in  his  liquid  g^ave,  which,  of  course,  was  a  fac  simile  of 
Joseph's  new  tomb  which  he  had  hewn  out  of  the  rock 
and  the  door  of  which  was  secured  by  a  great  stone — 
raised  with  Christ,  by  bursting  the  bars  of  the  same 
aqueous  sepulchre — all  this,  without  knowing  a  thing 
about  his  death,  burial,  or  resurrection  !  Thus  self-con- 
tradictory is  error :  truth  alone  is  consistent  with  itself. 

5.  The  question  is  sometimes  asked,  If  immersion  be 
not  the  true  mode  of  baptism,  how  comes  it  to  pass  that 
it  was  practised  by  the  primitive  church  ? 

This  is  a  sophistical  method  of  arguing.  It  is  not  true, 
as  the  objection  insinuates,  that  immersion  was  the  only 
mode  practised  in  the  primitive  church,  nor  is  it  true  that 
the  fathers  practised  it  as  the  only  valid  mode ;  nor  does 
it  follow  that  it  is  the  best  mode  because  many  of  them 
gave  it  the  preference. 

Immersionists  are  generally  antipedobaptists.  How 
comes  it  then  that  the  authority  of  the  fathers  is  cited 
for  immersion,  and  set  aside  in  reference  to  the  baptism 
of  children,  which  they  all  practised  as  an  apostolical 
custom  ?  No  antipedobaptist  immersionist,  claiming  pa- 
tristic authority,  can  answer  that  question. 

The  admission  of  infants  to  baptism,  or  their  exclusion 
from  it,  all  must  admit,  is  a  matter  of  fundamental  import- 
ance in  reference  to  this  ordinance.  If  therefore  they  had 
not  been  admitted  to  baptism  by  the  apostles,  they  could 
not  have  been  admitted  by  their  immediate  successors, 
without  exciting  controversy.    But  no  controversy  was 


-  A 

114  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 


excited — no  one  ever  called  in  question  the  right  of  chii 
dren  to  the  ordinance,  or  the  fact  of  their  having  been  ad- 
mitted by  the  apostles.  How  then  can  they  who  exclude 
infants  from  baptism,  frame  an  argument  for  immersion, 
as  the  exclusive  mode,  out  of  the  practice  of  immersion  by 
the  primitive  church  ? 

It  is  easy  enough  to  account  for  the  prevalence  of  im- 
mersion in  the  Cyprianic  period  of  the  church. 

The  apostles,  as  we  have  seen,  practised  affusion ;  but 
as  the  term  baptisma  or  baptismos,  applied  to  the  Chris- 
tian ordinance,  has  a  generic  force,  implying  purification, 
when  superstition  encroached  upon  the  church,  and  bap- 
tism became  identified  with  spiritual  regeneration,  either 
as  the  thing  itself  or  the  necessary  condition  of  it,  it  was 
very  natural  in  these  mistaken  fathers  to  wish  to  apply 
the  regenerating  element  to  the  subject  in  greater  copious- 
ness and  with  more  imposing  ceremonies  than  had  here- 
tofore obtained.  Hence  the  innovation  began  by  washing 
the  subject  in  a  bath  and  pouring  water  upon  him.  The 
baptisterium  employed  for  this  purpose  was  not  large 
enough  for  the  immersion  of  the  body.  It  was  a  portable 
vessel,  a  specimen  of  which  may  still  be  seen  in  the  cele- 
brated baptistry  of  Constantine,  at  Home.  This  bath  was 
used  for  baptism  in  the  times  of  the  fathers. 

In  some  cases,  the  bath  was  large  enough  for  the  par- 
tial immersion  of  the  subject,  especially  if  he  was  a  child. 
In  one  such  bath,  Constantine  the  Great  was  baptized  by 
Eusebius ;  and  in  the  ancient  pictures  of  the  baptism  of 
the  emperor,  he  is  represented  partially  immersed,  and  the 
bishop  is  pouring  water  upon  his  head.  In  precisely  the 
same  way  are  the  king  and  queen  of  the  Longobardi  re- 
presented as  receiving  baptism,  on  their  embracing  Chris- 
tianity, A.  D.  591. 

It  is  remarkable,  too,  that  in  the  pictures  of  the  third, 
fourth,  and  fifth  centuries,  Christ  is  represented  as  receiving 
baptism  by  pouring — John  standing  by  the  river  and  Jesus 
standing  in  the  water  at  the  depth  of  two  or  three  feet. 
In  no  instance,  in  these  ancient  representations,  is  the  ad- 
ministrator in  the  water ;  and  in  no  instance  is  the  sub- 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 


115 


ject  plunged  into  the  element.*  "Would  such  a  baptism  be 
considered  orthodox  by  our  modern  immcrsionists  ? 

Plunging,  however,  was  early  introduced  in  some 
'churches,  for  instance,  in  Africa,  as  it  is  spoken  of  by 
Tertullian,  who  attributed  so  much  efficacy  to  this  ordi- 
nance. He  it  was  who  wished  to  postpone  the  baptism 
of  children,  and  indeed  of  adults,  except  in  special  cases ; 
and  it  was  perfectly  natural  for  him  to  sanction  if  not  to 
introduce  novelties  in  regard  to  the  mode  as  well  as  the 
subjects  of  baptism.  Hence  he  speaks  of  being  plunged 
three  times  in  the  water  of  baptism — as  Gregory  the 
Great,  in  his  Sacramentary,  explains  it :  "  Let  the  priests 
baptize  with  a  trine  immersion,  but  with  only  one  invoca- 
tion of  the  Holy  Trinity,  saying,  I  baptize  thee  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  (then  let  him  dip  the  person  once,) 
and  of  the  Son,  (then  dip  again,)  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
(then  dip  the  third  time)."  Gregory,  however,  admitted 
that  one  dip  was  sufficient ;  but  he  advocated  the  three 
dippings  with  only  one  invocation,  as  symbolizing  the 
Trinity  in  Unity.  Some  suppose  that  pouring  was  always 
used,  even  when  trine  immersion  was  administered:  we 
think  this  doubtful.  We  think  it  doubtful  too  that  women 
were  immersed  in  a  state  of  nudity,  albeit  the  authorities 
that  speak  of  immersion  speak  also  of  its  being  received 
naked.  The  women  may  have  been  washed  by  the 
deaconesses  in  a  separate  apartment,  and  then  baptized  by 
the  minister  by  the  original  mode  of  pouring.  But  it  is 
hard  to  say  at  what  point  superstition  will  stop  when  it 
once  has  the  reins. 

The  subject  was  not  immersed  in  his  clothes,  as  it  was 
not  his  clothes  but  his  body  which  was  to  be  washed.  #o 
in  pouring,  the  water  was  always  applied  to  the  head  un- 
covered. 

Triple  immersion  of  the  naked  subject  was  accompanied 
by  exorcism,  or  a  ceremony  for  casting  out  the  devil.  So 
far  as  we  can  ascertain,  this  innovation  is  as  ancient  as 
the  other.  It  is  spoken  of  by  Cyprian  and  the  Council  of 
Carthage,  A.  D.  256.    It  grew  out  of  the  practice  of 


*  See  Engravings  in  the  Appendix,  pages  241-244. 


116 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 


renouncing  the  devil  at  baptism,  spoken  of  by  Tertullian, 
as  of  traditional  and  not  scriptural  authority. 

As  a  further  improvement  on  the  ordinance,  the  sub- 
jects were  signed  with  the  cross.  According  to  some 
there  were  three  signatures,  and  according  to  others,  only 
one — with  three  afflations  by  the  minister. 

The  Apostolical  Constitutions  speak  also  of  anointing 
with  oil.  Tertullian  also  says  :  "  When  they  came  out 
of  the  water,  then  they  were  anointed  with  the  holy  unc- 
tion, and  had  imposition  of  hands  in  order  to  receive  the 
Holy  Ghost/'  This  is  further  improved  upon  by  the 
Constitutions:  "Thou  shalt  first  of  all  anoint  him  with 
the  holy  oil,  then  baptize  him  with  the  water,  and  after- 
ward sign  him  with  the  ointment :  that  the  anointing  with 
oil  may  be  the  participation  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  the 
water  may  be  the  symbol  of  death,  and  the  signing  with 
ointment  may  be  the  seal  of  the  compact  made  with 
God." 

And  whereas  milk  is  given  to  babes,  and  milk  and  honey 
were  the  promised  blessings  of  God's  people,  what  more 
edifying  than  to  give  milk  and  honey  to  the  new-born 
babes  of  Christ  ?  Accordingly,  our  old  friend  Tertullian 
speaks  of  this  practice  as  a  part  of  the  baptismal  service 
in  his  days.  In  the  next  century,  a  little  salt  was  added, 
and  why  not  ?  Is  it  not  spoken  of  in  the  New  Testament 
as  a  valuable  article  ?  And  as  there  was  a  custom  among 
the  Jews  of  rubbing  salt  on  the  bodies  of  new-born 
infants,  Ezek.  xvi.  4,  what  more  appropriate  in  "  the  sacra- 
ment of  the  new  birth"  ?  And  what  more  expressive  of 
purity  than  white  garments,  with  which  they  were  clothed 
afler  their  washing — or  of  illumination,  than  the  lighted 
tapers  placed  in  the  hands  of  adults  or  of  the  sponsors  of 
infants,  at  their  baptism  ? 

Now,  nearly  all  these  addenda  to  baptism  can  be  traced 
up  to  within  a  century  after  the  apostolic  age — some  of 
them  in  one  section  of  the  church,  and  some  in  another. 
Nearly  all  of  them  are  alluded  to  by  the  learned  and 
visionary  Tertullian,  who  seems  to  have  laid  himself  out 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED, 


117 


to  improve  upon  the  institutions  of  Christ.*  But  much 
as  the  fathers  prized  them,  they  did  not  consider  any  of 
them  essential  to  the  ordinance.  Hence,  when  it  was  im- 
practicable to  immerse  the  subject,  they  sprinkled  him,  or 
poured  water  upon  him  :  when  milk,  honey,  salt,  oil,  etc., 
could  not  be  procured,  the  baptism  was  performed  without 
them.  Even  Cyprian  himself  acknowledged  the  validity 
of  baptism,  by  the  simple,  scriptural  mode  of  affusion, 
without  any  of  those  superstitious  ceremonies.  For  this 
reason  they  made  their  way  extensively  in  the  church, 
without  encountering  much  opposition. 

Let  it  be  noted,  too,  that  so  far  as  patristic  authority 
goes,  all  these — nudity,  triple  immersion,  imposition  of 
hands,  exorcism,  milk,  honey,  salt,  oil,  white  garments, 
tapers — stand  or  fall  together.  They  all  belong  to  one 
and  the  same  age — they  are  all  of  one  and  the  same 
parentage.    Superstition  is  the  mother  of  them  all. 

Justin  Martyr,  who  wrote  forty  years  after  the  death  of 
the  apostles,  and  who  himself  improved  somewhat  upon 
the  Christian  system,  or  at  least  sanctioned  the  improve- 
ments of  others,  mentions  however  none  of  those  baptis- 
mal innovations.  He  speaks,  indeed,  of  washing  the  can- 
didates in  some  place  where  there  is  water.  And,  as  we 
have  suggested,  this  washing  may  have  been  effected  by  a 
copious  application  of  the  water ;  yet  even  this  is  rendered 
doubtful  by  a  passage  in  this  father's  writings.  He  says 
that  sprinkling  with  holy  water  u  was  invented  by  demons 
in  imitation  of  the  true  baptism,  signified  by  the  prophets, 
that  the  votaries  of  the  demons  might  also  have  their  pre- 
tended purifications  by  water/'  Heathen  sprinklings 
would  be  a  sorry  imitation  of  Christian  immersions.  we 


**  He  makes  mention  of  the  trine  immersion,  ter  mergitamur,  the 
milk  and  honey,  in  Be  Corona,  iii. — the  water,  oil,  milk  and  honey  in 
Adversus  Marcionem,  lib.  i.  c.  xiv.  Jerome  applies  Is.  lv.  1 — "  Ho 
every  one  that  thirsteth,  come  ye  to  the  waters:  yea,  come,  buy  wine, 
and  milk  without  money  and  without  price" — to  baptism.  He  thinks 
the  milk  indicates  the  innocence  of  childhood,  and  refers  to  1  Cor.  iii.  2  ; 
Heb.  v.  12 ;  1  Pet.  ii.  2,  in  corroboration  of  his  opinion.  Clement  of 
Alexandria  also  alludes  to  the  custom  as  prevalent  in  the  Greek  church. 


118 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 


may  be  sure  that  Justin  did  not  consider  the  devil  such  a 
bungler  as  that  would  make  him. 

Even  Tertullian  himself,  fond  as  he  was  of  water,  being 
a  stickler  for  the  trine  immersion  in  baptism,  nevertheless 
uses  the  terms  tingoy  lavo,  ahhio,  aspergo,  as  interchangeable 
with  baptizo  and  mergo,  thereby  showing  that  he  consi- 
dered wetting,  washing,  bathing,  sprinkling,  as  well  as 
plunging  or  immersion,  a  proper  meaning  of  the  term,  and 
a  lawful  mode  of  baptism.  He  accordingly  says,  (JDe  Bap- 
tismo,  c.  xii.  Opp.  p.  229,  fol.)  the  apostles  were  baptized 
when  they  were  in  the  ship  during  the  storm,  sprinkled, 
adsperstj  by  the  spray  of  the  sea.  Verily,  this  was  bap- 
tism by  aspersion,  whether  it  was  Christian  baptism  or 
not.  Cyprian  and  indeed  all  the  fathers  of  the  Cyprianic 
and  Nicene  ages,  while  they  preferred  immersion,  for  rea- 
sons already  stated,  nevertheless  recognized  the  validity  of 
affusion  and  sometimes  performed  the  ordinance  by  this 
mode. 

But  there  is  a  testimony  of  a  different  sort,  and  one 
which  settles  the  question  as  to  the  mode  in  the  earliest 
periods  of  patristic  antiquity,  before  the  church — particu- 
larly the  Western  church — was  much  infected  by  the 
mania  of  improvement.  The  artisticrepresentations  of 
baptism,  which  have  come  down  to  us  from  primitive 
times  all  set  forth  the  ordinance  as  performed  by  pour- 
ing— even  when  the  lower  part  of  the  body  was  placed  in 
a  bath.  And  in  the  oldest  of  them,  there  is  no  immer- 
sion of  any  part  of  the  body.  In  the  Catacomb  of  Pon- 
tianus,  situated  outside  of  the  Portese  gate  at  Rome,  is  a 
basin  of  running  water,  with  which  the  Christians  baptized 
their  converts  during  the  persecutions  which  raged  in  the 
first  and  second  centuries.  This  Catacomb  was  a  burial 
place  for  the  martyrs,  as  appears  from  the  rude  inscrip- 
tions, with  the  insignia  of  the  cross,  the  skull  separated 
from  the  trunk  with  the  instrument  of  death  by  the  side 
of  it,  the  phial  tinged  with  blood,  etc.  It  appears  to  have 
been  a  baptistery  before  it  was  enlarged  into  a  burial  place. 
The  chapel,  so  to  call  it,  has  a  recess  of  about  two  feet  in 
depth  and  width,  just  large  enough  for  the  person  who 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 


119 


administered  the  ordinance.  This  was  done  by  affusion, 
as  further  appears  from  a  picture  on  the  rock  representing 
the  administrator  pouring  water  on  the  head  of  the  sub- 
ject.* That  baptistery — a  venerable  memorial  of  those  who 
were  baptized  with  blood  as  well  as  with  water — con- 
tains no  reminiscence  of  immersion,  exorcism,  milk,  honey, 
oil,  salt,  and  tapers ;  and  that  for  the  best  of  reasons,  they 
were,  one  and  all,  the  inventions  of  a  later  age;  and  so 
far  as  we  are  concerned,  those  who  want  them  are  welcome 
to  them.  But  immersionists  act  inconsistently  in  taking 
the  first  without  taking  all  the  rest  along  with  it :  as  also 
do  the  papists,  who  take  all  the  et  ceteras,  and  a  little 
spittle  to  boot,  and  yet  decline  the  immersion. 

6.  When  nothing  else  can  be  said  in  favour  of  immer- 
sion, as  the  exclusive  mode  of  baptism,  it  is  sometimes 
said  that,  at  all  events,  it  is  the  safer  mode,  as  no  one 
doubts  its  validity,  while  many  do  doubt  the  validity  of 
affusion. 

This,  we  fancy,  is  the  most  popular  and  effective  argu- 
ment employed  by  immersionists  in  support  of  their 
pretensions.  It  has  done  considerable  service  in  its 
day.  Upon,  examination,  however,  it  may  prove  like 
some  others  we  have  noticed,  utterly  futile  and  worth- 
less. 

When  it  is  said,  no  one  doubts  the  validity  of  immer- 
sion, a  word  of  explanation  seems  to  be  necessary.  We 
may  admit  that  none  who  practice  affusion  are  so  bigoted 
as  to  consider  those  unbaptized  who  have  been  immersed 
for  baptism.  Yet  there  are  many  of  them,  who,  if  they 
had  not  been  baptized,  could  not  with  a  clear  conscience 
submit  to  immersion — many  who  cannot  conscientiously 
immerse  a  candidate  for  baptism — and  exceedingly  few 
among  them,  who  do  not  consider  that  baptism  by  immer- 


*  Alluding  to  the  Church  of  Rome,  Tertullian  says,  (De  Prescription e 
Hcereticorum,  c.  xxxvi.) — "aqua  signal,  Sancto  Spiritu  vestzt,  eucha- 
ristia  paseit :  she  seals  with  water,  clothes  with  the  Holy  Spirit,  feeds 
with  the  eucharist."  The  collocation  of  terms  implies  the  application 
of  the  element  in  each  case  to  the  subject — as  by  pouring  in  baptism. 


120 


MODE  OP  BAPTISM. 


sion  is  valid  in  spite  of  the  plunging,  and  not  in  conse- 
quence of  it.  They  consider  it  a  mangling  of  the  Saviour's 
ordinance,  and  they  never  witness  an  immersion  without 
feelings  of  revulsion  and  sorrow.  All  such  persons  con- 
sider it  too  great  a  stretch  of  charity  to  abandon  what  they 
believe  to  be  the  more  excellent  way,  at  the  demand  of 
an  insatiate  bigotry,  which  grows  by  that  on  which  it 
feeds.  To  yield  to  such  claims  they  consider  nothing 
better  than  a  mawkish  and  factitious  liberality,  as  to 
assert  them  is  nothing  better  than  arrogance  or  igno- 
rance, or  both  united. 

If  the  argument,  whose  fallacy  we  are  exposing,  will 
subserve  the  cause  of 'The  immersionist,  the  principle 
which  it  involves  will  hold  good  for  the  papist,  nay,  even 
for  the  Mohammedan  and  pagan  too.  The  believer  in 
revealed  religion  does  not  doubt  that  a  pagan  who  im- 
proves the  light  given  him  may  be  saved.  But  how  many 
pagans  are  there  who  do  not  believe  that  any  can  be 
saved  who  are  not  of  their  religion.  Is  it  therefore  safer 
for  us  to  imitate  Julian  the  Apostate,  and  become  pagans 
than  to  remain  Christians  ?  The  disciples  of  Christ  may 
believe  that  a  Mohammedan  may  be  saved,  in  spite  of  the 
base-born  religion  in  which  he  has  been  educated,  if  he 
lives  up  to  the  light  he  has  received.  But  no  sincere  and 
faithful  follower  of  the  Arabian  impostor  believes  that 
a  Christian  dog  can  enter  paradise.  Shall  we  therefore 
tread  in  the  footsteps  of  Bonaparte  and  Bern — though 
from  other  motives — turn  Mussulmen,  and  set  out  with 
staff  and  scolloped  shell  on  a  pilgrimage  to  Mecca  ?  Al- 
though the  papist  has  had  the  Decalogue  materially 
abridged  and  the  Creed  indefinitely  extended,  by  the 
ghostly  keepers  of  his  conscience,  the  protestant,  whose 
religion  is  contained  in  the  Bible  alone,  believes  that  the 
papist  may  be  saved,  if  he  lives  up  to  the  light  he  has  re- 
ceived. But  the  papist  affirms,  in  the  creed  of  Pope  Pius, 
that  out  of  his  faith  there  is  no  salvation.  Is  it  therefore 
safer  for  us  to  abandon  our  scriptural  and  rational  system 
of  faith  and  worship  to  embrace  the  Burnish  system,  with 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 


121 


all  its  impious  and  superstitious  enlargements  and  mutila- 
tions of  the  gospel  of  our  salvation  ?* 

This  argument  is  a  monstrous  sophism.  It  invests 
bigotry  with  the  prerogatives  of  infallible  authority,  and 
demands  sacrifices  to  be  made  at  the  shrine  of  error  which 
ought  to  be  made  only  at  that  of  truth.  And  it  must  be 
remembered  that  that  is  truth  to  a  man  which,  after  an 
honest  and  thorough  investigation,  he  believes  to  be  truth. 
And  no  amount  of  charity  which  he  may  have,  or  which 
he  may  think  God  himself  has,  for  the  errors  of  others, 
will  justify  him  in  giving  them  his  sanction.  Treason 
against  the  truth  is  a  capital  offense. 

The  greatest  justifiable  concession  to  the  prejudices  oi 
other  men  of  which  we  have  any  account,  is  the  case  of 
the  circumcision  of  Timothy  by  St.  Paul,  a  because  of  the 
Jews  which  were  in  those  quarters,  for  they  knew  all  that 
his  father  was  a  Greek."  Acts  xvi.  1-3.  The  act,  in 
itself  indifferent,  was  not  made  unlawful  by  any  improper 
motive,  but  the  motive  being  good,  the  act  was  considered 
expedient  and  was  performed  accordingly.  We  presume 
it  was  proper,  as  it  was  performed  by  St.  Paul,  and  the 
record  gives  no  hint  of  disapproval  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 
But  when  circumstances  were  changed,  and  such  an  act 
would  be  construed  into  a  leaning  towards  the  abrogated 
system  of  Judaism,  the  apostle  pursued  the  opposite 
course.  Writing  to  the  Galatians,  he  says  :  "  But  neither 
Titus,  who  was  with  me,  being  a  Greek,  was  compelled  to 
be  circumcised;  and  that  because  of  false  brethren,  un- 
awares brought  in,  who  came  in  privily  to  spy  out  our 
liberty  which  we  have  in  Christ  Jesus,  that  they  might 
bring  us  into  bondage  :  to  whom  we  gave  place  by  sub- 


s' Bishop  Taylor  handles  this  Donatist  and  Popish  reasoning  without 
gloves  : — "  Consider  that  of  this  argument,  if  it  shall  be  accepted,  any 
bold  heretic  can  make  use,  against  any  modest  Christian  of  a  true  per- 
suasion. For,  if  he  can  but  outface  the  modesty  of  the  good  man,  and 
tell  him  he  shall  be  damned;  unless  that  modest  man  say  as  much  of 
him,  you  see  impudence  shall  get  the  better  of  the  day.  But  it  is  thus 
in  every  error."  See  his  " Letter  to  a  gentleman  seduced  to  the  Church 
of  Rome,"  folio  edition,  1673,  page  61 — where  the  principle  opposed 
is  subjected  to  the  appropriate  test,  the  argumentum  ad  absurdum. 


122 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 


jection,  no,  not  for  an  hour,  that  the  truth  of  the  gospel 
might  continue  with  you."  Gal.  ii.  3-5.  And  to  these 
same  Galatians  he  does  not  scruple  to  address  himself  in 
this  strong  language  :  H  Behold,  I  Paul  say  unto  you,  that 
if  ye  be  circumcised,  Christ  shall  profit  you  nothing.  For 
I  testify  again  to  every  man  that  is  circumcised,  that  he 
is  a  debtor  to  do  the  whole  law,  Christ  is  become  of  no  ef- 
fect unto  you,  whosoever  of  you  are  justified  by  the  law  : 
ye  are  fallen  from  grace.  For  we  through  the  Spirit  wait 
for  the  hope  of  righteousness  by  faith.  For  in  Jesus 
Christ  neither  circumcision  availeth  any  thing,  nor  uncir- 
cumcision ;  but  faith  which  worketh  by  love."  "  As  many 
as  desire  to  make  a  fair  show  in  the  flesh,  they  constrain 
you  to  be  circumcised,  only  lest  they  should  suffer  perse- 
cution for  the  cross  of  Christ.  For  neither  they  themselves 
who  are  circumcised  keep  the  law,  but  desire  to  have  you 
circumcised,  that  they  m$y  glory  in  your  flesh."  Gal.  v. 
2-6 ;  vi.  12, 13.  The  noble-minded  apostle  would  make  any 
sacrifices,  any  concessions,  in  condescension  to  the  weak- 
nesses and  prejudices  of  men,  provided  there  was  no 
compromise  of  principle  and  conscience.  "  For  though," 
he  says,  u  I  be  free  from  all  men,  yet  have  I  made  my- 
self servant  unto  all,  that  I  might  gain  the  more.  And 
unto  the  Jews  I  became  as  a  Jew,  that  I  might  gain  the 
Jews:  to  them  that  are  under  the  law,  as  under  the  law, 
that  I  might  gain  them  that  are  under  the  law  :  to  them 
that  are  without  law,  as  without  law,  that  I  might  gain 
them  that  are  without  law.  To  the  weak  became  as  I  as 
weak,  that  I  might  gain  the  weak  :  I  am  made  all  things 
to  all  men,  that  I  might  by  all  means  save  some."  1  Cor. 
ix.  19-22.  But  with  all  his  liberality,  all  his  condescension, 
he  would  make  no  concession,  no  sacrifice,  which  would 
be  likely  to  be  construed  into  the  dereliction  of  any 
vital  point  in  the  gospel  system. 

On  the  same  general  ground  as  that  occupied  by  the 
apostle,  we  are  disposed  to  make  any  concession  to  the 
immersionists  which  will  not  involve  a  surrender  of  prin- 
ciple, or  a  sanction  of  error.  We  are  ready  to  recognize 
their  n:ode  of  performing  baptism  as  valid,  though  a  de- 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 


123 


parture  from  the  primitive  mode,  and  a  clumsy  way  of 
performing  an  otherwise  simple,  beautiful,  and  impressive 
ordinance.  We  may  indeed,  in  special  cases  and  in  con- 
descension to  weak  consciences,  administer  the  ordinance 
by  plunging — though,  in  such  cases,  some  think,  affusion 
ought  not  to  be  omitted,  else  there  might  be  need  for 
Hezekiah's  prayer:  "The  good  Lord  pardon  every  one 
that  prepareth  his  heart  to  seek  God,  the  Lord  God  of 
his  fathers,  though  he  be  not  cleansed  according  to  the 
purification  of  the  sanctuary." 

In  all  such  concessions,  if  there  be  an  error,  it  leans  on 
the  side  of  charity — such  charity  as  prompted  the  precept : 
64  Wherefore  receive  ye  one  another,  as  Christ  also  received 
us  to  the  glory  of  God."  Rom.  xv.  7.  But  if  the  conces- 
sion be  demanded  by  bigotry — if  it  cannot  be  made  with- 
out sanctioning  an  unscriptural  and  arrogant  exclusiveness, 
or  without  a  sacrilegious  repetition  of  the  sacred  ordi- 
nance— we  are  not  to  give  place  by  subjection  to  such 
demands,  "no,  not  for  an  hour." 

This  boasted  argumentum  ex  concesso,  like  the  appeals 
to  history,  analogy,  topography,  and  philology,  fails  to  give 
any  support  to  the  schismatical  assumptions  in  question. 
Indeed^the  objections  we  have  examined,  instead  of  weak- 
ening, corroborate  the  pregnant  presumptions,  infallible 
proofs,  and  palpable  demonstrations  which  establish  the 
claims  of  that  cause  we  have  been  called  upon  to  defend. 
And  we  are  bold  to  say,  that  it  has  nothing  to  fear  from 
the  labor,  learning,  sophistry,  or  ignorance  of  its  im- 
pugners,  so  far  as  its  perpetuation  and  ultimate  triumph 
are  concerned,  as  nothing  can  prove  that  false  which  ia 
demonstrably  true. 


USE  OF  BAPTISM. 


CHAPTER  VI. 
USE  OF  BAPTISM., 

SECTION  I. — BAPTISM  IS  NOT  REGENERATION,  NOR  ITS 
NECESSARY  CONDITION  OR  INSTRUMENT. 

The  design  of  baptism  has  been  strangely  undervalued 
and  as  strangely  overrated.  In  the  one  case  a  pseudo 
rationalism  has  produced  the  result — in  the  other,  a  fell 
superstition. 

1.  As  baptism  is  set  forth  in  Scripture  as  the  symbol 
of  regeneration,  and  as  it  is  easy  and  natural  to  fall  into 
a  tropical  style  of  speech — metonomies  being  common 
among  all  people — it  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  that  baptism 
was  very  early  called  by  the  names  of  that  which  it  sym- 
bolizes. Unfortunately,  however,  the  fathers,  who  allowed 
themselves  this  liberty  of  expression,  were  not  careful  to 
guard  their  language  from  misapprehension  and  abuse. 
The  consequence  was,  the  most  preposterous  and  extrava- 
gant notions  were  soon  attached  to  this  ordinance — as  if  it 
really  were  the  remission  of  sins,  or  regeneration,  instead 
of  the  washing  that  represents  it ;  or  as  if  there  can  be  no 
regeneration  without  or  before  baptism,  and  no  baptism 
without  regeneration. 

It  is  but  too  evident  that  this  doctrine  of  baptismal  re- 
generation, as  it  is  styled,  soon  became  the  popular  belief 
of  the  patristic  church.  And  as  regeneration  is  necessary 
to  salvation  so  they  considered  baptism  necessary,  even  to 
infants  themselves.  But  as  there  is  something  revolting 
and  horrible  in  the  damnation  of  infants,  they  invented 
a  limbus  infantum  to  which  those  infants  who  die  unbap- 
tized  are  consigned.  In  this  place  they  are  doomed  to 
undergo  the  poena  damni,  the  pain  of  loss,  though  not 
the  pama  sensus,  the  punishment  of  positive  suffering — the 
torment  endured  by  those  who  are  sentenced  to  the  dam- 


BAPTISM  NOT  REGENERATION. 


125 


nation  of  hell — albeit  Augustin,  Fulgentius,  and  Gregory, 
duri  infantum  patres — affirmed  that  unbaptized  infants 
experience  the  latter.  It  is  enough  to  say  of  this  patristic 
purgatory,  or  hell,  that  it  is  worthy  of  the  superstition 
which  caused  its  creation. 

There  are  various  forms  in  which  the  dogma  of  baptis- 
mal regeneration,  so-called,  is  held. 

Sometimes  the  advocates  of  the  doctrine  speak  of  bap- 
tism as  regeneration — sometimes  as  the  instrument  of  re- 
generation— and  sometimes  as  the  condition  of  regenera- 
tion :  sometimes  as  taking  effect  ex  opere  operato,  by  its 
own  inherent  virtue — sometimes  ex  opere  operands,  in 
view  of  the  faith  and  prayers  of  the  parties  concerned, 
whether  subjects  or  sponsors — and  sometimes  in  conse- 
quence of  eternal  election.  And  what  is  more  remarkable, 
one  and  the  same  author  will  affirm  several  or  all  of  these 
propositions,  as  if  they  were  any  more  consistent  with  one 
another  than  they  are  with  the  teachings  of  reason  and 
Scripture,  which  are  opposed  to  them  all. 

As  has  been  already  remarked,  the  unscriptural  and 
irrational  dogma  originated  with  the  fathers,  to  whose 
paternity  we  may  trace  nearly  all  the  errors  that  have 
cursed  the  church.  From  designating  baptism  by  the 
grace  which  it  symbolizes,  they  soon  began  to  ascribe  the 
grace  to  the  ordinance. 

Thus  Tertullian :  "  Water  produced  the  first  living 
things,  that  we  might  not  wonder  that  in  baptism  the  wa- 
ter should  bring  forth  new  creatures." 

To  the  same  effect  is  Basil:  "  The  Holy  Ghost  moved 
upon  the  waters  of  creation,  because  he  intended  to  move 
upon  the  waters  in  the  renovation  of  man."  Speaking 
of  God's  subduing  our  iniquities  and  casting  our  sins  into 
the  depths  of  the  sea,  he  says,  "  Hoc  est  in  mare  haptismiy) 
— "  that  is,  into  the  sea  of  baptism." 

Origen  says :  (i  Because  by  the  sacrament  of  baptism 
the  pollutions  of  our  birth  are-  laid  aside,  therefore  even 
infants  are  baptized." 

Ambrose  refers  the  washing  of  our  robes  in  the  blood 
of  the  Lamb  to  baptismal  purification. 


126 


USE  OE  BAPTISM. 


Augustin  says :  (<  As  none  are  to  be  prohibited  baptism, 
so  there  are  none  who  do  not  die  to  sin  in  baptism/' 

Indeed,  there  is  a  well-nigh  unanimous  consent  of  the 
fathers  on  this  subject.  Sometimes  they  verge  to  the 
borders  of  truth,  and  then  again  they  diverge  to  the  ex- 
treme of  error,  scarcely  differing  from  the  doctrine  of 
Rome,  as  systematized  and  stereotyped  by  the  Councils 
of  Florence  and  Trent. 

The  Council  of  Florence  says  :  u  Holy  baptism  has  the 
first  place  among  all  the  sacraments,  because  it  is  the  door 
of  spiritual  life,  for  by  it  we  are  made  members  of  Christ 
and  of  the  body  of  the  church.  And  since  by  the  first 
man  death  has  entered  into  the  world,  unless  we  are  born 
again  of  water  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  we  cannot,  (as  says  - 
the  truth,)  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  The  effect 
of  this  sacrament  is  the  remission  of  all  guilt,  original  and 
actual — also  of  all  punishments  owed  for  any  guilt.  More- 
over, to  the  baptized  there  is  no  satisfaction  enjoined  for 
past  sins )  but  those  who  die  before  they  commit  any  sin 
arrive  at  once  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven  and  the  vision  of 
God." 

The  Council  of  Trent,  session  v.,  canon  iv.,  says : 
"  Whoever  shall  deny  that  newly-born  infants,  even 
though  sprung  from  baptized  parents,  ought  to  be  baptized ; 
or  shall  say  that,  though  they  be  baptized  for  the  remis- 
sion of  sins,  yet  they  derive  not  from  Adam  that  original 
guilt  which  must  be  expiated  in  the  laver  of  regeneration 
— in  order  to  secure  eternal  life — let  him  be  accursed." 
And  in  canon  v. :  "  Whoever  shall  deny  that  the  guilt 
of  original  sin  is  remitted  by  the  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  bestowed  in  baptism ;  or  shall  affirm  that  that 
wherein  sin  truly  and  properly  consists  is  not  entirely 
rooted  up,  but  is  only  cut  down  and  not  imputed — let  him 
be  accursed/7  In  session  vii.,  canon  v.,  it  declares : 
"  Whoever  shall  affirm  that  baptism  is  indifferent,  that  is, 
not  necessary  to  salvation,  let  him  be  accursed/' 

In  its  Catechism,  the  Council  teaches  as  follows:  "The 
law  of  baptism  extends  to  all,  insomuch  that,  unless  they 
be  regenerated  through  the  grace  of  baptism^  be  their  pa- 


BAPTISM  NOT  REGENERATION. 


127 


rents  Christians  or  infidels,  they  are  born  to  eternal  misery 
and  everlasting  destruction.  If  then  through  the  trans- 
gression of  Adam,  children  inherit  the  stain  of  primeval 
guilt,  is  there  not  still  stronger  reason  to  conclude  that 
the  efficacious  merits  of  Christ  the  Lord  must  impart  to 
them  that  justice  and  those  graces  which  will  give  them 
a  title  to  reign  in  eternal  life.  This  happy  consummation 
baptism  alone  can  accomplish. — The  faithful  are  earnestly 
to  be  exhorted  to  take  care  that  their  children  be  brought 
to  the  church  as  soon  as  it  can  be  done  with  safety,  to 
receive  solemn  baptism :  infants  unless  baptized  cannot 
enter  heaven,  and  hence  we  may  well  conceive  how  deep 
the  enormity  of  their  guilt,  who  through  negligence  suffer 
them  to  remain  without  the  grace  of  the  sacrament  longer 
than  necessity  may  require,  particularly  at  an  age  so 
tender  as  to  be  exposed  to  numberless  dangers  of  death. — 
The  salutary  waters  of  baptism  not  only  wash  away  all  the 
stains  of  past  sins,  but  also  enrich  the  soul  with  divine 
grace,  which  enables  the  Christian  to  avoid  sin  for  the 
future,  and  preserve  the  invaluable  treasures  of  righteous- 
ness and  innocence." 

Some  Romish  writers,  indeed,  endeavor  to  evade  the 
Tridentine  canons  and  to  modify  the  teachings  of  the  Cate- 
chism ;  but  as  all  of  them  are  sworn  to  abide  by  the 
infallible  decision  of  the  holy  Council,  and  are  anathema- 
tized if  they  do  not,  they  generally  maintain  the  doctrine 
of  the  church  on  the  efficacy  and  necessity  of  baptism, 
however  repulsive  to  reason  and  charity. 

"  Confirmation,"  says  the  famous  Gerson,  "  is  not  ne- 
cessary as  baptism  and  repentance,  for  without  these 
salvation  cannot  be  had." 

Bishop  England,  in  his  u  Catechism  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  Faith,  published  for  the  use  of  his  flock,"  in 
Charleston,  S.  C.,  feeds  them  with  thi»  instruction, 
jp.  53  :— 

"  What  is  baptism  ? 

a  A  sacrament  which  cleanses  from  original  sin,  makes 
us  Christians  and  children  of  God,  and  heirs  to  the  king- 
dom of  heaven. 


USE  OF  BAPTISM. 


"  Does  baptism  also  remit  the  actual  sins  committed  be* 
fore  it  ? 

"  Yes  :  and  all  the  punishment  due  to  them. 

"  Is  baptism  necessary  to  salvation  f 

"Yes;  without  it  we  cannot  enter  the  kingdom  of 
God  John  iii.  5." 

The  Reformers  varied  very  little  from  the  teaching  of 
Rome  on  this  subject.  In  the  mixed  commission  at  the 
Diet  of  Augsburg,  consisting  of  two  princes,  two  lawyers, 
and  three  divines  on  the  Romish  and  the  same  on  the 
Protestant  side — Dr.  Eck  being  one  of  the  divines  of  the 
former  communion  and  Melancthon  one  of  the  Reformed 
— they  came  to  an  agreement  on  the  subject  of  Original 
Sin — the  Protestants  admitting  that  the  guilt  of  it  is 
taken  away  by  baptism,  and  the  Papists  conceding  that 
baptism  does  not  wash  away  concupiscence. 

Luther  maintained  the  regenerating  virtue  of  the  ordi- 
nance, and  Melancthon  incorporated  the  dogma  into  the 
Augsburg  Confession,  which  teaches  that  "  natural  de- 
pravity is  really  sin,  and  still  condemned,  and  causes 
eternal  death  to  those  who  are  not  born  again  by  baptism 
and  the  Holy  Spirit,"* 

The  Helvetic  Confession  says :  "  Baptism  by  the  Lord's 
institution  is  the  law  of  regeneration." 

Calvin  himself,  writing  to  Melancthon,  says :  "  We 
agree  that  sacraments  are  not  empty  figures,  but  do  truly 
supply  whatever  they  represent — that  the  efficacy  of  the 
Spirit  is  present  in  baptism  to  cleanse  and  regenerate  us." 
It  seems,  however,  that  baptism  is  but  an  empty  figure  to 
reprobate  infants,  for  Calvin  elsewhere  affirms :  "  We 
diligently  teach  that  God  doth  not  put  forth  his  power 
without  distinction  to  all  who  receive  the  sacraments,  but 
only  to  the  elect. "f 


*  Jeremy  Taylor,  in  Umim  Necessarium,  chap,  vii.,  sec.  4,  says  : 
u  Gregorius  Arirninensis,  Driedo,  Luther,  Melancthon,  and  Tilmanus 
Heshusius,  are  fallen  into  the  worst  of  St.  Augustin's  opinion,  and 
sentence  poor  infants  to  the  flames  of  hell  for  original  sin  if  they  die 
before  baptism." 

•f  It  is  proper  to  state  that  baptismal  regeneration  is  repudiated  by 


BAPTISM  NOT  REGENERATION. 


129 


Cranmer  was  a  firm,  though  inconsistent,  believer  in 
baptismal  regeneration.  He  teaches  in  his  Catechism 
that  "  the  Holy  Grhost  moves  men's  hearts  to  faith  and 
calls  them  to  baptism,  and  then  by  faith  and  baptism  he 
works  so,  that  he  makes  us  new  men  again. "  And  in 
another  place  :  "  Whosoever  will  be  spiritually  regene- 
rated in  Christ,  he  must  be  baptized." 

He,  with  the  other  bishops  of  the  Church  of  England 
in  the  days  of  Henry  VIII.,  signed  the  following  article : 
"  Of  Baptism  :  The  people  must  be  instructed  that  it  is  a 
sacrament  instituted  by  Christ  for  the  remission  of  sins, 
without  which  none  could  attain  everlasting  life  \  and  that 
not  only  those  of  full  age,  but  infants,  may  and  must  be 
baptized  for  the  pardon  of  original  sin  and  obtaining  the 
gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  by  which  they  become  the  sons  of 
God." 

In  the  H  Articles  about  Religion,  set  out  by  the  Con- 
vention, and  published  by  the  King's  authority,"  signed 
by  T.  Cromwell,  the  Archbishops,  Bishops,  Deans,  etc., 
we  have  the  following  : — 

"Item  :  That  the  promise  of  grace  and  everlastiug  life, 
which  promise  is  adjoined  unto  the  Sacrament  of  Bap- 
tism, pertaineth  not  only  unto  such  as  have  the  use  of 
reason,  but  also  to  infants,  innocents,  and  children  )  and 
they  ought  therefore  and  must  needs  be  baptized  \  and 
that  by  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism  they  do  also  obtain 
remission  of  their  sins,  the  grace  and  favor  of  God,  and  be 
made  thereby  the  very  sons  and  children  of  God,  inso- 
much as  infants  and  children  dying  in  their  infancy  shall 
undoubtedly  be  saved  thereby,  or  else  not. 

"  Item  :  That  infants  must  needs  be  christened  be- 
cause they  be  born  in  original  sin,  which  sin  must  needs 
be  remitted,  which  cannot  be  done  but  by  the  Sacrament 
of  Baptism,  whereby  they  receive  the  Holy  Ghost  which 
exerciseth  his  grace  and  efficacy  in  them  and  cleanseth 


the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church  of  the  United  States ;  as  also,  foi 
the  most  part,  by  the  various  Calvinistic  Churches. 
6* 


130 


USE  OF  BAPTISM. 


and  purifietn  them  from  sin  by  his  most  secret  virtue  and 
operation." 

Although  the  Keformers  advanced  doctrines  opposed  tc 
the  foregoing,  both  at  that  time  and  afterward,  yet  this 
does  not  prove  any  thing  but  their  inconsistency ;  nor  can 
it  be  shown  that  they  ever  repudiated  those  views  at  any 
time.  They  are  manifestly  incorporated  into  the  Prayer 
Book,  which  gravely  tells  us  :  "  It  is  certain  by  God's 
word,  that  children  which  are  baptized,  dying  before  they 
commit  actual  sin,  are  undoubtedly  saved."  But  what 
if  they  are  not  baptized  ?  Those  who  compiled  the  li- 
turgy say  they  are  not  saved. 

Church-of-England  men  sometimes  reproach  Presbyte- 
rians for  teaching  that  some  infants  are  reprobate,  and 
accordingly  damned,  because  the  Confession  says,  "  Elect 
infants  are  saved,"  unmindful  of  the  glass-house  proverb, 
which  neither  prelates  nor  presbyters  ought  to  forget. 

Nothing,  indeed,  is  clearer  than  that  baptismal  regene- 
ration is  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England.  It  seems 
preposterous  to  deny  this,  as  it  seems  superfluous  to  prove 
it.  Nevertheless,  as  there  are  some  that  do  the  former, 
it  may  not  be  amiss  for  us  to  do  the  latter.  We  have,  in 
truth,  already  done  this ;  for  the  articles  set  forth  by  au- 
thority, already  cited,  have  never  been  revoked.  They 
are  still  in  force — they  are  the  teaching  of  the  Church. 
T^e  Catechism  inculcates  it  explicitly — e.  g.  : 

u  What  is  your  name? 

"  N.  or  M. 

"  Who  gave  you  this  name  ? 

"My  godfathers  and  godmothers  in  my  baptism, 
wherein  I  was  made  a  member  of  Christ,  the  child  of 
God,  and  an  inheritor  of  the  kingdom  of  Heaven." 

It  is  idle  to  say  this  is  to  be  understood  in  a  ceremonial, 
ecclesiastical  sense.  The  framers  of  the  Catechism,  as  we 
have  seen,  did  not  so  understand  it ;  nor  is  the  language, 
except  by  the  most  violent  distortion,  susceptible  of  any 
such  interpretation. 

Besides,  the  Office  of  Baptism  fixes  the  meaning  of  the 
terms  here  employed.    It  instructs  the  priest  to  pray  that 


BAPTISM  NOT  REGENERATION 


131 


the  child  coming  to  holy  baptism  may  receive  remission 
of  sins  by  spiritual  regeneration :  after  baptizing  the 
child  to  say,  u  Seeing  now,  dearly  beloved  brethren,  that 
this  child  is  regenerate,  and  grafted  into  the  body  of 
Christ's  church,  let  us  give  thanks  unto  Almighty  God 
for  these  benefits;"  and  then,  as  the  mouth  of  the  con- 
gregation, to  offer  thanks  for  the  same  :  "  We  yield  thee 
hearty  thanks,  most  merciful  Father,  that  it  hath  pleased 
thee  to  regenerate  this  infant  with  thy  Holy  Spirit,  to 
receive  him  for  thine  own  child  by  adoption,  and  to  in- 
corporate him  into  thy  holy  church." 

And  then  when  the  child  comes  up  for  confirmation, 
the  bishop  endorses  the  whole  in  the  prayer :  "  Almighty 
and  ever-living  God,  who  hast  vouchsafed  to  regenerate 
these,  thy  servants,  by  water  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
hast  given  unto  them  forgiveness  of  all  their  sins, 
strengthen  them,  we  beseech  thee,  0  Lord,  with  the  Holy 
Ghost  the  Comforter,  and  daily  increase  in  them  thy  mani- 
fold gifts  of  grace." 

The  Catechism,  moreover,  calls  baptism  ({  a  sacrament," 
which  it  defines,  "  an  outward  and  visible  sign  of  an  in- 
ward and  invisible  grace,  given  unto  us,  ordained  by 
Christ  himself,  as  a  means  whereby  we  receive  the  same, 
and  a  pledge  to  assure  us  thereof."  But  then,  with, 
strange  inconsistency,  it  makes  the  sign  only  one  part 
of  the  sacrament,  and  the  thing  signified  another  part — 
thus  a  sacrament  is  a  sign  of  a  part  of  a  sacrament !  By 
this  arrangement,  however,  it  secures  the  dogma  of  bap- 
tismal regeneration,  for  it  makes  the  inward  and  invisible 
grace,  not  merely  the  thing  signified  by  the  sacrament,  but 
a  part  of  the  sacrament  itself.    This  is  its  language  : — 

"  How  many  parts  are  there  in  a  sacrament  ? 

u  Two  :  the  outward  visible  sign,  and  the  inward 
spiritual  grace. 

"What  isXthe  outward  visible  sign,  or  form  in  bap- 
tism ? 

"  Water,  wherein  the  person  is  baptized,  in  the  name 
of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
"  What  is  the  inward  and  spiritual  grace  ? 


132 


USE  OF  BAPTISM. 


"  A  death  unto  sin,  and  a  new  birth  unto  righteousness; 
for  being  by  nature  born  in  sin,  and  the  children  of 
wrath,  we  are  hereby  made  the  children  of  grace." 

It  is  difficult  to  imagine  how  such  language  can  be  in- 
terpreted in  any  other  sense  than  one  which  involves  bap- 
tismal regeneration.  There  are  passages  in  the  Articles 
and  Liturgy  inconsistent  with  this  dogma;  but  what  of 
that  ?  Who  ever  dreamed  of  finding  consistency  in  those 
venerable  documents  ? 

The  old  divines  of  the  English  Church,  following  in 
the  wake  of  the  fathers  of  the  Reformation,  inculcate  the 
doctrine  for  the  most  part,  without  any  reserve,  though 
not  without  the  variations  which  we  have  already  specified. 

Thus  the  learned  Bishop  Andrews,  in  his  11th  ser- 
mon, on  the  Resurrection  of  Christ,  preached  before  King 
James  I.  :  "  A  child  is  brought  into  the  world,  but  it  is 
carried  but  again  to  the  church,  there  to  be  born  and 
brought  forth  anew,  by  the  sacrament  of  regeneration." 
u  And  such  is  the  water  of  our  regeneration,  not  from  the 
brooks  of  Teman,  that  in  summer  will  be  dry,  but  the 
water  of  Jordan,  a  running  river.  There  Christ  was  him- 
self baptized  :  there  he  began  and  laid  the  sacrament  of 
our  new  birth,  to  show  what  the  nature  of  the  hope  is,  it 
yields,  even  viva  with  life  in  it."  What  a  strange 
conceit ! 

In  his  5th  Whitsunday  sermon,  he  says:  "A  special 
prerogative  hath  the  Holy  Ghost  in  our  baptism  above 
the  other  two  Persons.  That  laver  is  his  laver  properly, 
where  we  are  not  only  to  be  baptized  into  him,  as  into 
the  other  two,  but  also  even  to  be  baptized  with  him  : 
which  is  proper  to  him  alone.  For  besides  the  water,  we 
are  there  to  be  born  anew  of  the  Holy  Ghost  also,  else  is 
there  no  entering  for  us  into  the  kingdom  of  God." 
Adopting  the  illustration,  so  common  among  the  Fathers, 
from  whom  we  suppose  he  took  it,  he  says  :  "  The  same 
way  the  world  was  made  in  the  beginning,  by  the  Spirit 
moving  upon  the  waters  of  the  deep,  the  very  same  way 
was  the  world  new  made — the  Christian  world  or  church 
— by  the  same  Spirit  moving  on  the  waters  of  baptism." 


BAPTISM  NOT  REGENERATION. 


133 


Dr.  Donne  is  equally  explicit  and  more  prolific  on  the 
subject.  Thus  in  his  29th  sermon,  he  says  :  H  We  know 
no  ordinary  means  of  any  saving  grace  for  a  child,  but 
baptism,  neither  are  we  to  doubt  of  the  fullness  of  salva- 
tion in  them  that  have  received  it."  "  I  will  sprinkle  clean 
water  upon  you,  and  you  shall  be  clean.  This  is  his  way 
and  this  is  his  measure — he  sprinkles  enough  at  first  to 
make  us  clean  :  even  the  sprinkling  of  baptism  cleanses 
us  from  original  sin."  This,  however,  is  not  to  be  under- 
stood in  an  absolute  sense,  but  according  to  the  teaching 
of  Rome. 

Thus  in  his  57th  sermon,  he  enlarges  :  u  If  I  consider 
myself  to  be  as  well  as  I  was  at  my  baptism,  when  I 
brought  no  actual  sin,  and  had  the  hand  of  Christ  to  wash 
away  the  foulness  of  original  sin,  can  I  pray  for  a  better 
state  than  that  ?  Even  in  that  there  was  a  cloud  too,  and 
a  cloud  that  hath  thunder  and  lightning  in  it,  that  fomes 
peccati,  that  fuel  and  those  embers  of  sin,  that  are  but 
raked  up,  and  not  trod  out,  and  do  break  forth  upon  every 
temptation  that  is  presented,  and  if  they  be  not  effectually 
opposed,  shall  aggravate  my  condemnation,  more  than  if 
I  had  never  been  baptized." 

This  is  somewhat  more  clearly  stated  in  his  Devotions — 
Expostulation  xxii. :  "  Though  we  cannot  assign  the  place 
of  original  sin,  nor  the  nature  of  it  so  exactly,  as  of  ac- 
tual, or  by  any  diligence  divest  it,  yet  having  washed  it  in 
the  water  of  thy  baptism,  we  have  not  only  so  cleansed  it, 
that  we  may  the  better  look  upon  it  and  discern  it,  but  so 
weakened  it,  that  howsoever  it  may  retain  the  former  na- 
ture, it  doth  not  retain  the  former  force,  and  though  it 
may  have  the  same  name,  it  hath  not  the  same  venom." 
Nice  distinctions  !  Rare  divinity  ! 

In  his  85th  sermon,  "  preached  at  a  Christening,"  he 
says  :  "  Whom  he  chooseth  for  his  marriage-day,  that  is, 
for  that  church  which  he  will  settle  upon  himself  in  hea- 
ven, we  know  not ;  but  we  know  that  he  hath  not  promised 
to  take  any  into  that  glory,  but  those  upon  whom  he  hath 
first  shed  these  fainter  beams  of  glory  and  sanctification, 
exhibited  in  this  sacrament;  neither  hath  he  threatened 


134 


USE  OF  BAPTISM. 


to  exclude  any  but  for  sin  after.  And  therefore,  when 
this  blessed  child,  derived  from  faithful  parents,  and  pre- 
sented by  sureties  within  the  obedience  of  the  church, 
shall  have  been  so  cleansed  by  the  washing  of  water, 
through  the  word,  it  is  presently  sealed  to  the  possession 
of  that  part  of  Christ's  purchase,  for  which  he  gave  him- 
self, (which  are  the  means  of  preparing  his  church  in  this 
life,)  with  a  faithful  assurance,  I  may  say  of  it,  and  to  it, 
J\  rnundus  es,  Now  you  are  clean,  through  the  word 
which  Christ  hath  spoken  unto  you :  the  seal  of  the  pro- 
mises of  his  gospel  hath  sanctified  and  cleansed  you." 

In  his  SSth  Sermon,  he  says,  a  We  must  be  born  again  : 
we  must — there  is  a  necessity  of  baptism  :  as  we  are  the 
children  of  Christian  parents,  we  have  jus  ad  rem,  a  right 
to  the  covenant,  we  may  claim  baptism,  the  church  can- 
not deny  it  us ;  and  as  we  are  baptized  in  the  Christian 
church,  we  have  jus  in  re}  a  right  in  the  covenant,  and 
all  the  benefits  thereof,  all  the  promises  of  the  gospel :  we 
are  sure  that  we  are  conceived  in  sin,  and  sure  that  we  are 
born  children  of  wrath,  but  not  sure  that  we  are  cleansed, 
or  reconciled  to  God,  by  any  other  means  than  that  which 
he  hath  ordained,  baptism.  The  Spirit  of  God  moved 
first  upon  the  water;  and  the  spirit  of  life  grew  first  in 
the  water :  primus  liquor  quod  viveret  edidei :  the  first 
living  creatures  in  the  first  creation,  were  in  the  waters ; 
and  the  first  breath  of  spiritual  life,  came  to  us  from  the 
water  of  baptism.  In  the  temple  there  was  mare  eeneum, 
a  brazen  sea:  in  the  church  there  is  mare  aureum,  a 
golden  sea,  which  is  baptisterium,  the  font,  in  which  we 
discharge  ourselves  of  all  our  first  uncleanness,  of  all  the 
guiltiness  of  original  sin." 

The  doctrine  thus  frequently  presented  and  variously 
illustrated  by  this  "  old  man  eloquent"  is  the  current 
teaching  of  the  English  divines. 

The  following  pregnant  passage  is  from  the  Chrysostom 
of  the  Anglican  church.  In  his  "  Liberty  of  Prophesy- 
ing/' sec.  xviii.,  he  thus  presents  the  opus  operatum : — 

••Possibly  the  invitation  which  Christ  made  to  all  to 
come  to  him,  all  them  that  are  heavy  laden,  did,  in  its 


BAPTISM  NOT  REGENERATION.  135 


proportion,  concern  infants  as  much  as  others,  if  they  bo 
guilty  of  original  sin,  and  if  that  sin  be  a  burden,  and 
presses  them  to  spiritual  danger  or  inconvenience.  And 
if  they  be  not,  yet  Christ,  who  was,  as  Tertullian's  phrase 
is,  nullius poenitentix  debitor,  guilty  of  no  sin,  obliged  to  no 
repentance,  needing  no  purification  and  no  pardon,  was 
baptized  by  St.  John's  baptism,  which  was  the  baptism 
of  repentance. 

"  And  it  is  all  the  reason  of  the  world,  since  the  grace 
of  Christ  is  as  large  as  the  prevarication  of  Adam,  all 
they  who  are  made  guilty  by  the  first  Adam  should  be 
cleansed  by  the  second.  But  as  they  are  guilty  by 
another  man's  act,  so  they  should  be  brought  to  the  font 
to  be  purified  by  others,  there  being  the  same  proportion 
of  reason,  that  by  others'  acts  they  should  be  relieved  who 
were  in  danger  of  perishing  by  the  act  of  others. 

"  And,  therefore,  St.  Austin  argues  excellently  to  this 
purpose:  6  Their  mother,  the  church,  furnishes  them  with 
the  feet  of  others  that  they  may  come — with  the  heart  of 
others  that  they  may  believe — with  the  tongue  of  others 
that  they  may  make  a  confession  :  in  order  that,  as  they 
are  diseased  in  consequence  of  another's  sin,  so  being 
made  whole  by  another's  confession  they  may  be  saved.' 

"  And  Justin  Martyr  :  c  The  children  of  pious  parents 
are  accounted  worthy  of  baptism,  through  the  faith  of 
those  who  bring  them  to  be  baptized.'* 

But  whether  they  have  original  sin  or  no,  yet  take 
them  in  puris  naturalibus,  they  cannot  go  to  God,  or  at- 
tain to  eternity,  to  which  they  were  intended  in  their  first 
being  and  creation  *  and,  therefore,  much  less  since  their 
naturals  are  impaired  by  the  curse  on  human  nature  pro- 
cured by  Adam's  prevarication.  And  if  a  natural  agent 
cannot,  in  puris  naturalibus,  attain  to  heaven,  which  is  a 
supernatural  end,  much  less  when  it  is  laden  with  acci- 
dental and  grievous  impediments. 


*  The  learned  bishop  gives  the  original  text  of  Augustin  (Ser.  z.  efe 
Verb.  Apost.)  and  of  the  work  attributed  to  Justin,  Beep,  ad  Ortho- 
doxos.    We  give  a  literal  translation. 


136 


USE  OF  BAPTISM. 


"  Now  then,  since  the  only  way  revealed  to  us  of  acquir- 
ing heaven  is  by  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  first  inlet  into 
Christianity  and  access  to  him  is  by  baptism,  as  appears 
by  the  perpetual  analogy  of  the  New  Testament,  either 
infants  are  not  persons  capable  of  that  end  which  is  the 
perfection  of  human  nature,  and  to  which  the  soul  of 
man,  in  its  being  made  immortal,  was  essentially  designed, 
and  so  are  miserable  and  deficient  from  the  very  end  of 
humanity,  if  they  die  before  the  use  of  reason  j  or  else 
they  must  be  brought  to  Christ  by  the  church  doors,  that 
is  by  the  font  and  waters  of  baptism. 

"  And  in  reason  it  seems  more  pregnant  and  plausible, 
that  infants  rather  than  men  of  understanding  should  be 
baptized.  For  since  the  efficacy  of  the  sacraments  depends 
upon  divine  institution  and  immediate  benediction,  and 
that  they  produce  their  effects  independently  upon  man,  in 
them  that  do  not  hinder  their  operation — since  infants  can- 
not by  any  acts  of  their  own  promote  the  hope  of  their 
own  salvation  which  men  of  reason  and  choice  may  by 
acts  of  virtue  and  election — it  is  more  agreeable  to  the 
goodness  of  God,  the  honor  and  excellency  of  the  sacra- 
ment, and  the  necessity  of  its  institution,  that  it  should  in 
infants  suppl}7  the  want  of  human  acts  and  free  obedi- 
ence :  which  the  very  thing  itself  seems  to  say  it  does, 
because  its  effect  is  from  God,  and  requires  nothing  on 
man's  part  but  that  its  efficacy  be  not  hindered.  And 
then  in  infants  the  disposition  is  equal,  and  the  necessity 
more  :  they  cannot  poncre  obicem,  and  by  the  same  rea- 
son cannot  do  other  acts,  which,  without  the  sacrament, 
do  advantages*  towards  our  hopes  of  heaven ;  and  there- 
fore have  more  need  to  be  supplied  by  an  act  and  an  in- 
stitution divine  and  supernatural. 

"  And  this  is  not  only  necessary  in  respect  of  the  condi- 
tion of  infants'  incapacity  to  do  acts  of  grace,  but  also  in 
obedience  to  divine  precept.  For  Christ  made  a  law, 
whose  sanction  is  with  an  exclusive  negative  to  them  that 


*  We  quote  verbatim  from  Royston's  folio  edition  of  Taylor's  Works 
p.  1041 :  London ;  1674. 


■ 


BAPTISM  NOT  REGENERATION.  137 


are  not  baptized  :  Unless  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of 
the  Spirit,  he  shall  not  enter  the  kingdom  of  heaven/  If 
then  infants  have  a  capacity  of  being  co-heirs  with  Christ 
in  the  kingdom  of  his  Father,  as  Christ  affirms  they  have, 
by  saying,  1  For  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven/  then 
there  is  a  necessity  that  they  should  be  brought  to  baptism, 
there  being  an  absolute  exclusion  of  all  persons  unbaptized 
and  all  persons  not  spiritual  from  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 
But ,  indeed,  it  is  a  destruction  of  all  the  hopes  and  happi- 
ness of  infants,  a  denying  to  them  an  exemption  from  the 
final  condition  of  beasts  and  insectils,  or  else  a  designing  of 
them  to  a  worse  misery,  to  say  that  God  hath  not  appoint- 
ed some  external  or  internal  means  of  bringing  them  to  an 
eternal  happiness.  Internal  they  have  none )  for  grace 
being  an  improvement  and  heightening  the  faculties  of 
nature,  in  order  to  a  heightened  and  supernatural  end,  grace 
hath  no  influence  or  efficacy  upon  their  faculties,  who  can 
do  no  natural  acts  of  understanding ;  and:  if  there  be  no  ex- 
ternal means,  then  they  are  destitute  of  all  hopes  and  pos- 
sibilities of  salvation  " 

We  have  made  this  large  extract  from  the  learned  pre- 
late, partly  to  prevent  the  charge  of  garbling  his  writings 
— partly  to  exhibit  one  of  the  rarest  curiosities  of  theo- 
logical literature — and  partly  to  show  the  identity  of  An- 
glican and  Romish  teaching  on  the  subject  of  baptismal 
regeneration.  We  shall  not  stop  to  expose  his  sophistries 
and  rebut  his  absurd  reasonings — they  will  be  sufficiently 
answered  when  we  come  to  notice  the  equally  erroneous 
but  more  u judicious  Hooker,"  who  has  expended  no 
little  strength  in  support  of  the  dogma  in  question. 

In  other  parts  of  his  writings,  Taylor,  indeed,  has  doubt- 
ing^ refuted  himself.  Thus  in  Unum  Necessarium,  c.  vii. 
s.  4.,  he  says  :  u  If  the  unavoidable  want  of  baptism  should 
damn  infants  for  the  fault  which  was  also  unavoidable,  I 
do  not  understand  how  it  can  in  any  sense  be  true  that 
Christ  died  for  all,  if  at  least  the  children  of  Christian 
parents  shall  not  find  the  benefit  of  Christ's  death,  because 
that  without  the  fault  of  any  man  they  want  the  cere- 
mony. 


138 


USE  OF  BAPTISM. 


"  Upon  this  account  some  good  men  observing  the  great 
sadness  and  the  injustice  of  such  an  accident  are  willing 
upon  any  terms  to  admit  infants  to  heaven,  even  without 
baptism,  if  any  one  of  their  relatives  desire  it  for  them,  or 
if  the  church  desires  it,  which  in  effect  admits  all  Christian 
infants  to  heaven :  of  this  opinion  were  Gerson,  Biel,  Caje- 
tan,  and  some  others." 

"If  God  will  not  give  them  heaven  by  Christ,  he  will 
not  throw  them  into  hell  by  Adam  :  if  his  goodness  will 
not  do  the  first,  his  goodness  and  his  justice  will  not  suffer 
him  to  do  the  second  )  and  therefore  I  consent  to  antiquity 
and  the  schoolmen's  opinion  thus  far,  that  the  destruction 
or  loss  of  God's  sight  is  the  effect  of  original  sin,  that  is, 
by  Adam's  sin  we  were  left  so  as  that  we  cannot  by  it  go 
to  heaven. 

"  But  here  I  differ  :  Whereas  they  say  this  may  be  a 
final  event,  I  find  no  warrant  for  that,  and  think  it  only 
to  be  an  intermediate  event :  that  is  though,  Adam's  sin 
left  us  there,  yet  God  did  not  leave  us  there,  but  instantly 
gave  us  Christ  as  a  remedy ;  and  now  what  in  particular 
shall  be  the  state  of  unbaptized  infants,  so  dying,  I  do  not 
profess  to  know  or  teach,  because  God  hath  kept  it  a  se- 
cret :  I  only  know  that  he  is  a  gracious  Father,  and  from 
his  goodness  nothing  but  goodness  is  to  be  expected ;  and 
that  is,  since  neither  Scripture,  nor  any  Father  till  about 
St.  Augustine's  time  did  teach  the  poor  babes  could  die, 
not  only  once  for  Adam's  sin,  but  twice  and  for  ever,  I 
can  never  think  that  I  do  my  duty  to  God,  if  I  think  or 
speak  any  thing  of  him  that  seems  so  unjust,  or  so  much 
against  his  goodness. 

"  And  therefore  although  by  baptism,  or  by  the  ordi- 
nary ministry,  infants  are  new  born,  and  rescued  from  the 
state  of  Adam's  account,  which  metonymically  may  be 
called  a  remitting  of  original  sin,  that  is,  a  receiving  them 
from  the  punishment  of  Adam's  sin,  or  the  state  of  evil, 
whither  in  him  they  are  devolved ;  yet  baptism  does  but 
consider  that  grace  which  God  gives  in  Jesus  Christ,  and 
he  gives  it  more  ways  than  one,  to  them  that  desire  bap- 
tism, to  them  that  die  for  Christianity — and  the  church 


BAPTISM  NOT  REGENERATION.  li*9 


even  in  Origen's  time,  and  before  that,  did  account  tho 
babes  that  died  in  Bethlehem  by  the  sword  of  Herod  to 
be  saints — and  I  do  not  doubt  but  he  gives  it  many  ways 
that  we  know  not  of." 

This  is  boxing  the  theological  compass,  with  a  witness  : 
he  adjudges  the  "poor  babes"  to  hell — to  limbus — to 
heaven  ;  and  yet  does  not  profess  to  know  what  will  be- 
come of  them,  because  God  hath  kept  it  a  secret !  Jeremy 
Taylor  may  be  considered  the  Shakspeare  of  English  di- 
vines, but  certainly  not  the  Aristotle. 

Bp.  Burnet  has  incorporated  the  doctrine  of  baptismal 
regeneration  into  his  standard  work  on  the  thirty-nine  ar- 
ticles, in  this  modified  form  :  "  There  is  no  reason  to  think 
that  baptism  takes  away  all  the  branches  and  effects  of 
original  sin  :  it  is  enough  if  we  are  delivered  from  the 
wrath  of  God,  and  brought  into  a  state  of  favor  and  ac- 
ceptation." 

Even  the  evangelical  and  incomparable  Pearson,  in  his 
immortal  work  on  the  Creed,  (Art.  x.)  says :  "  It  is  the 
most  general  and  irrefragable  assertion  of  all,  to  whom  we 
have  reason  to  give  credit,  that  all  sins  whatsoever  any 
person  is  guilty  of,  are  remitted  in  the  baptism  of  the 
same  person. 

"  It  is  certain  that  forgiveness  of  sins  was  promised  to  all 
who  were  baptized  in  the  name  of  Christ ;  and  it  cannot 
be  doubted  but  all  persons  who  did  perform  all  things  ne- 
cessary to  the  receiving  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  did  also 
receive  the  benefit  of  that  ordinance,  which  is  remission 
of  sins.  1  John  did  baptize  in  the  wilderness,  and  preach 
the  baptism  of  repentance  for  the  remission  of  sins/  And 
St.  Peter  made  this  the  exhortation  of  his  first  sermon, 
( Repent  and  be  baptized,  every  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of 
Jesus  Christ  for  the  remission  of  sins/ 

"  In  vain  doth  doubting  and  fluctuating  Socinus  endeavor 
to  evacuate  the  evidence  of  this  Scripture,  attributing  the 
remission  either  to  repentance  without  consideration  of 
baptism,  or  else  to  the  public  profession  of  faith  made  in 
baptism ;  or  if  any  thing  must  be  attributed  to  baptism 
itself,  it  must  be  nothing  but  a  declaration  of  such  remis- 


140 


USE  OF  BAPTISM. 


sion.  For  how  will  these  shifts  agree  with  that  which 
Ananias  said  unto  Saul,  without  any  mention  either  of 
repentance  or  confession,  '  Arise,  and  be  baptized,  and 
wash  away  thy  sins?'  and  that  which  St.  Paul,  who  was 
so  baptized,  hath  taught  us  concerning  the  church,  that 
Christ  doth  'sanctify  and  cleanse  it  with  the  washing  of 
water  V 

(i  It  is  therefore  sufficiently  certain  that  baptism  as  it 
was  instituted  by  Christ  after  the  preadministration  of 
St.  John,  wheresoever  it  was  received  with  all  qualifica- 
tions necessary  in  the  person  accepting  and  conferred  with 
all  things  necessary  to  be  performed  by  the  person  admin- 
istering, was  most  infallibly  efficacious,  as  to  this  parti- 
cular, that  is,  to  the  remission  of  all  sins  committed 
before  the  administration  of  this  sacrament/' 

Whether  or  not  those  texts  if  quoted  in  full  would  sus- 
tain the  learned  prelate's  assumption,  we  shall  not  tarry 
to  inquire ;  nor  shall  we  do  more  than  suggest  that  the 
heretic  and  his  orthodox  opponent  have  for  once  ex- 
changed their  relative  positions — certain  it  is,  here  is  the 
dogma  of  baptismal  regeneration — contradicted,  indeed, 
by  many  pregnant  portions,  as  well  as  by  the  general 
tenor,  of  this  excellent  work. 

In  noticing  the  views  of  Cyprian  and  his  associates  in 
reference  to  the  remission  of  sins  in  baptism,  the  great 
ecclesiastical  archaeologist,  Bingham,  observes :  "  Here 
we  have  both  the  practice  of  the  church  and  the  reason 
of  it  together.  Infants  were  baptized  because  they  were 
born  in  original  sin,  and  needed  baptism  to  cleanse  them 
from  the  guilt  and  pollution  of  it." 

Bishop  Horsley  does  not  scruple  to  say  (Sermon  on  1 
John  v.  6)  :  "  All  the  cleansings  and  expiations  of  the  law, 
by  water  and  animal  blood,  were  typical  of  the  real  cleans- 
ing of  the  conscience  by  the  water  of  baptism,  and  of  the 
expiation  of  real  guilt  by  the  blood  of  Christ  shed  upon 
the  cross,  and  virtually  taken  and  received  by  the  faithful 
in  the  Lord's  Supper." 

This  therefore  is  the  teaching  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land— no  matter  what  else  it  teaches — as  Mr.  Wesley  re- 


BAPTISM  NOT  REGENERATION. 


141 


marts:  "It  is  certain  that  our  church  supposes  that  all 
who  are  baptized  in  their  infancy  are  at  the  same  time 
born  again  j  and  it  is  allowed  that  the  whole  Office  for  the 
Baptism  of  infants  proceeds  upon  this  supposition."  A* 
the  time  he  penned  this  passage,  as  a  dutiful  son  of  the 
Church  of  England,  he  ventured  a  lame  apology  for  the 
preposterous  dogma,  while  in  the  same  paragraph  he 
asserts  that  baptism  and  the  new  birth  are  not  one  and 
the  same  thing,  and  that  they  do  not  constantly  go  to- 
gether. Some  years  after,  when  called  upon  to  prepare 
a  Service  Book  for  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
having  renounced  the  dogma  in  question,  he  subjected  the 
Office  of  Baptism  to  a  thorough  elimination,  expunging 
all  those  passages  in  which  it  is  asserted  or  implied. 

It  is  almost  beyond  belief  that  worthy  men,  like  Groode, 
Gorham,  and  their  sympathizers  in  the  controversy  on 
this  subject  with  the  Bishop  of  Exeter  and  the  Puseyites, 
should  assert  that  this  is  not  an  article  of  belief  in  their 
venerable  establishment.  The  attempt  to  prove  so  extrav- 
agant an  assertion  seems  preposterous. 

Is  not  tlie  Oxford  teaching  on  the  subject  identical 
with  what  we  have  cited  so  largely  from  the  acknowledged 
authorities  of  the  Church  of  England  ? — as  for  instance 
in  the  Tracts  for  the  Times  (No.  67)  :  "  In  baptism  two 
very  different  causes  are  combined — the  one,  God  himself: 
the  other,  a  creature  which  he  has  thought  fit  to  hallow 
for  this  end.  This  regeneration  is  the  being  born  of  water 
and  of  the  Spirit,  or  by  Grod's  Spirit  again  moving  on  the 
face  of  the  waters,  and  sanctifying  them  for  our  cleans- 
ing, and  cleansing  us  thereby."  On  this  platform  the 
Protestant  Reformers  of  the  sixteenth  century  and  the 
Romanizing  Puseyites  of  the  nineteenth,  with  the  great 
body  of  Anglican  divines  who  appear  in  the  centuries  be- 
tween, meet  together  and  embrace  each  other. 

It  is  contended  by  some  that  the  baptismal  regenera- 
tion inculcated  by  the  Church  of  England  is  to  be  under- 
stood in  a  relative,  formal,  ecclesiastical,  external  sense, 
and  not  in  that  of  a  real,  spiritual,  moral,  internal 
change. 


142 


USE  OF  BAPTISM. 


But  the  Offices,  as  well  as  their  authorized  interpreters, 
pointedly,  and  of  set  purpose,  contradict  this  notion.  The 
change  effected  in  baptism  is  expressly  styled  a  spiritual 
regeneration — a  death  unto  sin  and  a  new  birth  unto 
righteousness — it  ensures  the  remission  of  sins,  original 
and  actual — and  is  explicitly  attributed  to  the  Holy  Ghost 
working  with,  by,  and  in,  the  water. 

It  is  impertinent  to  say  that  this  dogma  is  inconsistent 
with  the  Protestant  theology  of  the  Continental  Reformers, 
with  whom  the  framers  of  the  English  Articles  and  com- 
pilers of  the  Baptismal  Offices  were  in  fraternal  corres- 
pondence and  from  whom  they  received  counsel  and 
assistance  in  the  execution  of  their  task. 

We  have  already  seen  that  whatever  other  and  antago- 
nistic elements  their  theological  systems  embraced,  the 
Continental  Reformers  admitted  baptismal  regeneration — 
even  Calvin  himself,  although  it  is  palpably  incompatible 
with  his  scheme  of  election  and  reprobation.  Error  is 
always  at  odds  with  itself — truth  alone  is  self-consistent. 
The  influence  of  the  Continental  Reformers  may  therefore 
be  adduced  in  opposition  to  the  assumption  it  is  cited  to 
sustain. 

Certain  apologists  say  that  the  passages  in  question  in 
the  Offices  of  Baptism,  etc.,  must  be  understood  as  the 
language  of  charity. 

That  may  do  as  a  subterfuge  in  regard  to  the  baptism 
of  adults.  But  it  will  not  answer  in  the  case  of  children. 
They  do  not  ask  charity — there  is  no  room  for  its  exercise. 
The  matter  is  this:  Of  all  the  children  that  are  baptized, 
some  are  elect  and  have  an  interest  in  the  covenant  of 
grace,  and  the  rest  are  reprobate  and  have  no  part  or  lot 
in  the  matter;  but  as  we  cannot  tell  which  are  elect  and 
which  are  reprobate,  when  an  infant  is  baptized  we  are  to 
charitably  hope  that  he  is  not  a  little  reprobate,  but  one 
of  the  elect ! 

Or  the  Offices  are  to  be  interpreted  hypotlieticaJly .  We 
are  to  suppose  that  all  are  equally  interested  in  the  cove- 
nant of  grace — all  alike  entitled  to  its  privileges — which 
are  made  over  to  all  in  and  by  baptism — provided  there 


BAPTISM  NOT  REGENERATION, 


143 


be  no  defect  in  the  faith  and  devotion  of  the  subject, 
sponsors,  or  church;  and  we  are  to  hope  charitably,  in 
every  case,  that  there  is  no  such  defect,  and  we  may  use 
the  Offices  accordingly! 

Far-fetched  and  untenable  as  are  these  assumptions 
they  still  involve  baptismal  regeneration.  This,  however, 
can  scarcely  be  affirmed  of  another  of  Mr.  Gorham's  sub- 
tilties.  He  uses  the  Offices  which  teach  the  dogma,  and 
"  explicitly  and  expressly  denies  that  he  either  held,  or 
persisted  in  holding,  that  infants  are  not  made,  in  baptism, 
members  of  Christ  and  the  children  of  God yet  he  says 
he  subscribes  the  rubric  that  "  infants  baptized,  and' dying 
before  actual  sin,  are  certainly  saved  ,"  because  the  church 
has  "ruled"  it,  and  therefore  he  adds  "they  must  have 
been  regenerated  by  an  act  of  grace  prevenient  to  baptism, 
in  order  to  make  them  worthy  recipients  of  that  sacra- 
ment." 

So  children  are  regenerated  in  baptism,  because  they 
would  not  be  fit  to  receive  baptism  without  being  previ- 
ously regenerated !  No  wonder  a  learned,  bluff,  Pope 
Gregory  of  a  man,  like  Dr.  Philpotts,  should  sneer  at  all 
this,  and  denounce  it  as  unmanly  evasion  and  contemptible 
puerility.  The  Bishop  of  Exeter  wants  a  sacrament  that 
is  a  sacrament.  He  wants  no  uncertain,  hypothetical, 
quasi,  opus  operantis  affair;  but  a  genuine  opus  operatum 
— a  sacrament  that,  by  its  own  operation,  infallibly  con- 
veys grace  on  every  one  who  receives  it,  except  when  op- 
posed by  mortal  sin,  which  is  never  the  case  with  infants. 

And  although  Dr.  Sumner,  the  present  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury,  is  generally  placed  at  the  opposite  pole  to  Dr. 
Philpotts,  and  properly  enough,  so  far  as  it  regards  the 
absurd  and  arrogant  claims  of  prelacy,  yet,  in  respect  to 
baptismal  regeneration,  there  is  really  no  difference  be- 
tween them,  except  that  the  latter  is  rather  more  consist- 
ent in  maintaining  it  than  the  former. 

His  Grace  affirms,  "It  is  necessary  for  every  clergyman 
of  the  Church  of  England  to  hold  and  maintain  that  all 
infants  are  invariably  and  universally  spiritually  regene- 
rated in  and  by  the  act  of  baptism." 


144 


USE  OF  BAPTISM. 


In  opposing  what  a  Calvinistic  writer  calls,  "  the  Cal* 
vinistic  idea  that  regeneration  is  an  act  of  God's  Spirit, 
which,  once  done,  never  can  be  undone — that  the  grace  is 
special,  belonging  only  to  those  who  are  certainly  to  be 
saved,  and,  as  certainly,  to  be  holy- — that  they,  once  born, 
can  never  be  unborn" — in  opposing  this  error,  he  loses  the 
via  media  of  Scripture,  and  wanders  into  the  by-paths  of 
popery.  While  endeavoring  to  free  the  Father  of  mercies 
from  the  charge  of  partiality  and  cruelty,  involved  in  the 
Calvinistic  scheme  of  election  and  reprobation,  he  con- 
fines the  grace  of  God  to  a  mere  fraction  of  mankind  as 
obviously  and  objectionably  as  any  supralapsarian  that 
holds  the  "  horrible  decree." 

In  his  work  on  "  Apostolical  Preaching,"  published  in 
1824,  and  recently  republished,  with  a  Preface  referring  to 
^theGorham  controversy,  and  therefore  containing  the  pre- 
sent views  of  the  archbishop,  he  says : — 

"  Another  practical  evil  of  the  doctrine  of  special  grace, 
is  the  necessity  which  it  implies  of  some  test  of  God's 
favor,  and  of  the  reconcilement  of  Christians  to  him, 
beyond  and  subsequent  to  the  covenant  of  baptism.  St. 
Paul,  it  has  been  seen,  insists  upon  the  necessity  of  rege- 
neration. These  addresses  and  exhortations  are  founded 
on  the  principle  that  the  disciples,  by  their  dedication  to 
God  in  baptism,  had  been  brought  into  a  state  of  recon- 
cilement with  him,  had  been  admitted  to  privileges  which 
the  apostle  calls  on  them  to  improve. 

u  On  the  authority  of  this  example,  and  of  the  undeni- 
able practice  of  the  first  ages  of  Christianity,  our  church 
considers  baptism  as  conveying  regeneration,  instructing 
us  to  pray  before  baptism,  '  that  the  infant  may  be  born 
again,  and  made  an  heir  of  everlasting  salvation/  and  to 
return  thanks  after  baptism,  f  that  it  hath  pleased  God  to 
regenerate  the  infant  with  his  Holy  Spirit,  and  receive 
him  for  his  own  child  by  adoption/ 

u  But,  on  the  contrary,  if  there  is  a  distinction  between 
special  and  common  grace,  and  none  are  regenerated  but 
those  who  receive  special  grace,  and  those  only  receive  it 
who  are  elect,  baptism  is  evidently  no  sign  of  regeneration, 


BAPTISM  NOT  REGENERATION 


145 


eince  so  many  after  baptism  live  profane  and  unholy  lives, 
and  perish  in  their  sins.  Therefore  the  preacher  of  spe- 
cial grace  must,  consistently  with  his  own  principles,  lead 
his  hearers  to  look  for  some  new  conversion  and  expect  some 
sensible  regeneration.  This  brings  him  to  use  language  in 
the  highest  degree  perplexing  to  an  ordinary  hearer, 

"  What  would  be  the  feelings  of  a  plain  understanding, 
or  a  tirnid  conscience,  unable  to  unravel  the  windings  of 
these  secret  things,  on  learning  that  the  sinfulness  or  in- 
nocency  of  actions  does  not  depend  upon  their  being  per- 
mitted or  forbidden  in  the  revealed  law,  but  on  the  doer 
being  in  a  regenerate  or  unregenerate  state  at  the  time 
when  he  performs  them  ?  How  is  this  fact  of  regeneracy, 
upon  which  no  less  than  eternity  depends,  to  be  disco- 
vered ?  The  apostle  enumerates  the  works  of  the  flesh  and 
the  fruits  of  the  Spirit;  but  his  test  is  insufficient,  for  the 
two  lists  are  here  mixed  and  confounded.  The  hearers 
appeal  to  the  church,  as  an  authorized  interpreter  of  the 
Scripture.  The  church  acquaints  them  that  they  were 
themselves  regenerated,  and  made  the  children  of  grace,  by 
the  benefit  of  baptism,  while  the  preacher  evidently  treats 
them  as  if  it  wrere  possible  they  might  be  still  unregene- 
rate, without  defining  the  meaning  which  he  ascribes  to 
the  term  regeneration. 

"  Happily  for  our  church,  the  framers  of  its  rituals  took 
their  doctrine  from  the  general  tenor  and  promises  of 
Scripture ;  and  by  a  providential  care  extending  over  a 
church  so  framed,  the  succeeding  believers  in  Calvin  were 
never  allowed  to  introduce  their  subtilties  into  her  intel- 
ligible and  rational  formularies.  Therefore,  we  are  in- 
structed to  declare,  that  those  who  are  devoted  to  Christ 
as  infants  by  baptism,  are  regenerate,  i,  e.,  are  'accepted 
of  God  in  the  Beloved/  and  dying  i  without  actual  sin, 
are  undoubtedly  saved/ 

"It  is  indeed  a  sufficient  confutation  of  the  doctrine  of 
special  grace,  that  it  reduces  baptism  to  an  empty  rite,  an 
external  mark  of  admission  into  the  visible  church,  at- 
tended with  no  real  grace,  and  therefore  conveying  no  real 
benefit,  nor  advancing  a  person  one  step  towards  salvation. 


146 


USE  OF  BAPTISM. 


"But  if  baptism  is  not  accompanied  with  such  an  effusion 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  towards  the  inward  renewing  of  the 
heart,  that  the  person  baptized,  who  of  himself  and  of  his 
own  nature  could  1  do  no  good  thing/  by  this  amendment 
or  regeneration  of  his  nature  is  enabled  to  bring  forth 
fruit,  *  thirty,  or  sixty,  or  a  hundred  fold/  and  6  giving  all 
diligence  to  make  his  calling  and  election  sure/ — if  the 
effect,  I  say,  of  baptism  is  less  than  this,  what  becomes  of 
the  distinction  made  by  the  Baptist,  'I  indeed  baptize 
with  water,  but  He  who  comes  after  me,  shall  baptize 
with  the  Holy  Ghost  V  What  becomes  of  the  example  of 
Christ  himself?  After  his  baptism,  the  descent  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  in  a  visible  form,  was  surely  intended  to  con- 
firm his  followers  in  the  belief  that  their  baptism  would 
confer  upon  them  a  similar  gift,  and  besides  the  washing 
away  of  their  sins,  and  the  remission  of  the  penalty  en- 
tailed upon  the  posterity  of  Adam,  would  bestow  upon 
them  a  power  enabling  them  to  fulfil  the  covenant  laws 
of  their  religion.  No  preacher  therefore  is  authorized 
either  by  our  church,  or  by  St.  Paul,  to  leave  a  doubt  on 
the  minds  of  his  hearers,  whether  they  are  within  the 
pale  of  God's  favor;  but,  on  the  contrary,  is  bound  to  en- 
join them  to  6  seek  boldly  at  the  throne  of  grace/  for 
power  to  confirm  their  faith,  and  work  out  their  repent- 
ance, and  live  worthily  of  their  high  calling." 

The  reasoning  of  the  foregoing  extract  is  worthy  of  the 
theology  it  is  designed  to  defend.  It  is  painful  to  meet 
with  doctrines  so  dangerous  and  arguments  so  puerile  in 
the  writings  of  the  chief  dignitary  of  the  English  church. 
In  his  Preface,  indeed,  he  says  : — 

"  There  may  be  danger  in  addressing  a  congregation 
collectively  as  c  regenerate/  since  the  term  has  neither 
been  accurately  defined  in  Scripture,  nor  restricted  to  one 
sense  in  the  common  language  of  divines.  It  is  therefore 
very  possible  that  they  should  imagine  something  more 
to  be  included  in  that  metaphor  than  the  change  of  state 
in  which  they  tvere  placed  by  baptism.  It  is  scarcely  neces- 
sary for  me  to  add,  that  I  have  nowhere  insinuated  a  doubt 
which  I  have  never  felt,  whether  a  person  may  be  a  con- 


BAPTISM  NOT  REGENERATION. 


147 


sistent  minister  of  our  church,  who  holds  a  different  opin- 
ion concerning  the  effect  of  baptism  from  that  which  is 
advocated  in  this  volume,  and  believes  that  the  grace  of 
spiritual  regeneration  is  separable,  and,  in  fact,  often 
separated  from  the  sacrament  of  baptism/' 

Surely  the  archbishop  does  not  know  what  he  is  writing 
about,  or  else  he  has  a  very  bad  memory.  We  do  not 
think  it  likely  that  any  congregation  would  be  in  danger 
of  imagining  something  more  to  be  included  in  the  meta- 
phor of  regeneration  than  his  Grace  includes  in  it :  he 
says  it  is  a  "  regeneracy  upon  which  no  less  than  eternity 
depends" — that  the  church,  u  an  authorized  interpreter 
of  Scripture,"  tells  us  that  we  are  "  made  the  children  of 
grace"  by  our  baptismal  regeneration,  which  is  the  bap- 
tism of  the  Holy  Ghost,  spoken  of  by  John  the  Baptist, 
as  it  confers  upon  those  who  receive  it  a  similar  gift  to 
that  which  came  upon  Christ  in  his  baptism,  washes  away 
sins,  and  remits  the  penalty  entailed  upon  the  posterity 
of  Adam — and  that  "it  is  necessary  for  every  clergyman 
of  the  Church  of  England  to  hold  and  maintain  that  all 
infants  are  invariably  and  universally  spiritually  regene- 
rated, in  and  by  the  act  of  baptism."  There  is  small 
danger  that  any  of  the  "  regenerate"  will  imagine  some- 
thing more  than  this  to  be  included  in  their  baptismal 
regeneration.  Indeed,  in  what  respect  does  the  Council 
of  Trent  occupy  higher  ground  in  regard  to  the  virtue  and 
necessity  of  baptism  ? 

The  u  spiritual  regeneration,"  thus  identified  with  bap- 
tism, involves  the  operation  of  "  an  inward  and  invisible 
grace."  And  what  difference  is  there  whether  we  affirm 
with  Dr.  Pusey  that  this  grace  is  communicated  in  bap- 
tism by  an  inscrutable  operation,  an  influence  which 
neither  the  administrator  nor  recipient  can  know  any 
thing  about — or,  with  many  divines,  that  it  is  directly 
communicated  by  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  very  act  of  bap- 
tism— or,  with  the  Council  of  Trent  and  many  of  the 
English  divines,  that  it  is  conferred  per  ipsa,  by  the  sacra- 
ment itself,  ex  opero  operato,  by  its  own  virtue? — the 
grace  is  proper  to  baptism  :  with  baptism  we  have  it,  and 


148 


USE  OF  BAPTISM. 


are  saved  thereby — without  baptism  we  have  it  not,  and 
therefore  must  be  lost.  This  is  the  only  conclusion  to 
which  we  can  logically  arrive  from  the  foregoing  pre- 
mises, whatever  may  be  the  charitable  evasions  and  re- 
deeming provisos  of  some  who  maintain  this  preposterous 
dogma. 

2.  We  have  been  thus  full  and  explicit  in  setting  forth 
the  doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration  in  order  to  preclude 
the  charge  of  a  partial  and  distorted  presentation  of  the 
views  of  its  supporters,  as  well  as  to  save  the  necessity  of 
arguing  much  against  it.  To  state  the  doctrine  is  to 
refute  it.  We  cannot  reason  much  against  an  opinion  so 
irrational  as  that  which  attributes  the  purification  of  the 
soul  to  the  application  of  water  to  the  body.  It  seems 
almost  impossible  to  reason  either  for  or  against  a  notion 
so  extravagant. 

Universal  experience  and  observation  demonstrate  that 
the  grace  of  regeneration  is  not  tied  to  the  ordinance  of 
baptism  j  and  it  is  a  simple  absurdity  to  say  that  it  can 
be.  It  cannot  be  proved  by  any  evidence  of  the  senses, 
any  more  than  it  can  be  ascertained  by  the  teachings  of 
philosophy,  that  any  infant  ever  was  spiritually  born 
again  in  baptism.  An  adult,  indeed,  may  be;  for  he 
may  exercise  that  faith  by  which  we  become  the  sons  of 
God,  in  the  very  moment  in  which  the  baptismal  element 
is  applied ;  and  the  application  of  the  element  may  so  far 
prove  a  means  of  grace,  as  that  it  may  assist  him  in  his 
effort  thus  to  believe  to  the  saving  of  the  soul.  But  to 
every  one  such  case  there  are  thousands  of  others  in  which 
the  act  of  baptism  either  precedes  or  follows  the  renewing 
of  the  Holy  Ghost.  There  is  no  reason,  experience,  or 
testimony,  to  oppose  this  view  of  the  subject;  but  enough 
of  each  to  support  it. 

We  scarcely  need  say  that  the  dogma  of  baptismal 
regeneration  is  not  contained  in  Scripture.  It  is  contrary 
to  all  the  perfections  of  Jehovah,  as  revealed  in  the  Bible, 
to  sentence  millions  of  his  creatures  to  eternal  death,  for 
the  omission  of  an  outward  rite  of  which  they  knew  no- 
thing at  all.    We  repel  the  blasphemy  with  indignation 


BAPTISM  NOT  REGENERATION. 


149 


And  we  defy  the  advocates  of  the  dogma  to  adduce  a 
single  passage  of  holy  writ  which  either  teaches  or  implies 
that  God  has  tied  the  grace  of  regeneration  to  the  per- 
formance of  water  baptism. 

The  attempt  to  do  this  by  the  judicious  Hooker  is  not 
mnch  in  keeping  with  that  honorable  title  by  which  he  is 
commonly  distinguished.  It  was  a  desperate  undertaking 
and  proved  a  magnificent  failure. 

Hooker  asks  (Eccles.  Pol.  v.  lxi.) :  u  Unless  as  the 
Spirit  is  a  necessary  cause,  so  water  were  a  necessary  out- 
ward mean  to  our  regeneration,  what  construction  should 
we  give  unto  those  words,  wherein  we  are  said  to  be  new- 
born, and  that  f|  v8atos,  even  of  water?  John  iii.  5." 

We  admit  that  to  "  be  born  of  water"  means  to  be  bap* 
tized  by  water  5  and  to  u  be  born  of  the  Spirit"  means  to 
be  baptized  by  the  Spirit;  but  then  these  two  are  dif- 
ferent matters,  and  the  difference  is  indicated  by  the  use 
of  the  conjunction — "  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and 
of  the  Spirit."  They  are  so  distinct  that  a  man  may  be 
born  of  water  and  at  the  same  time  not  be  born  of  the 
Spirit,  as  was  the  case  with  Simon  the  sorcerer,  whom 
Philip  baptized.  Acts  viii.  On  the  other  hand,  a  man 
may  be  born  of  the  Spirit,  and  at  the  same  time  not  be 
born  of  water,  as  was  the  case  with  Cornelius  and  his 
friends.  Acts  x.  But  both  these  are  necessary  to  mem- 
bership in  the  Church  of  Christ — the  one  constituting 
our  formal,  and  the  other  our  spiritual,  entrance  into  the 
kingdom  of  God.  These  two,  therefore,  are  not  identical, 
as  Cartwright  and  others  affirm,  as  if  there  were  no  allu- 
sion at  all  to  baptism,  but  to  the  work  of  the  Spirit  alone, 
presented  under  the  notion  of  water  \  nor  is  the  one  the 
formal  or  efficient  cause,  or  the  exclusive,  principal,  or 
usual  means  or  instrument  of  the  other,  as  Oxford,  Rome, 
and  their  satellites  maintain.*    And  although  none  are 


*  Some  of  the  fathers  understand  by  "  water,"  baptism,  and  by  "the 
Spirit,"  confirmation.  Thus  Augustin  says:  "Although  some  under- 
stand these  words  only  of  baptism,  and  others  of  the  Spirit  only, — yet 
others  understand  utrumque  sacram^tum,  both  sacraments — confir- 


150 


USE  OF  BAPTISM. 


members  or  the  visible  church,  who  are  not  baptized  by 
water,  yet  this  lamentable  defect  will  not  prevent  their 
entrance  into  the  kingdom  of  glory,  as  it  does  not  prevent 
their  entrance  into  the  kingdom  of  grace,  if  they  do  not 
wilfully  and  contumaciously  slight  this  holy  ordinance. 

Hooker  furthermore  asks :  "  Why  are  we  taught  that 
with  water  God  doth  purify  and  cleanse  his  church  ?" 

We  will  furnish  the  reason.  As  the  oriental  bride  was 
purified  before  she  was- brought  to  the  bridegroom,  so  the 
spouse  of  Christ  receives  a  formal  purification  by  baptism, 
and  a  spiritual  purification  "  by  the  word/'  which  is  used 
by  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  sanctification  of  the  soul,  and 
which  St.  Paul  is  careful  to  mention  in  the  same  verse, 
and  which  Hooker  is  careful  to  suppress.  Eph.  v.  26. 
Compare  John  xvii.  17  :  "  Sanctify  them  through  thy 
truth  :  thy  word  is  truth."  James  i.  18  :  "  Of  his  own 
will  begat  he  us  with  the  word  of  truth."  1  Pet.  i.  22,  23 : 
"  Seeing  ye  have  purified  your  souls  in  obeying  the  truth 
through  the  Spirit — being  born  again,  not  of  corruptible 
seed,  but  of  incorruptible,  by  the  word  of  God,  which 
liveth  and  abideth  for  ever."  It  is  sometimes  advanta- 
geous to  let  Scripture  be  its  own  interpreter. 

Hooker  asks  again  :  "  Wherefore  do  the  apostles  of 
Christ  term  baptism  a  bath  of  regeneration  ?  Titus  iii.  5." 

And  why  do  they  distinguish  it  from  "  the  renewing  of 
the  Holy  Ghost"  in  the  very  same  passage  ?  Some,  in- 
deed, suppose  that  by  "  the  washing  of  regeneration"  the 
apostle  does  not  mean  water  baptism,  but  the  spiritual 
change,  the  clause  succeeding  being  put  in  apposition,  as 
exegetical  in  its  bearing :  as  if  it  read,  "  the  washing  of 
regeneration,  even  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 
There  is  nothing  absurd  in  this  construction  of  the  pas- 
sage )  but  it  is  forced.  And  no  relief  is  afforded  by 
John  iii.  5,  to  which  we  are  referred  as  a  parallel  text. 
We  consider  it  parallel,  and  therefore  think  that  this  in- 
terpretation is  forced  as  applied  to  it :  "  Except  a  man  be 


ination  as  well  as  baptism/'  We  think,  however,  that  the  Scripture 
knows  nothing  about  sacramental  confirmation. 


BAPTISM  NOT  REGENERATION. 


151 


born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  God."  In  like  manner  Matt.  iii.  11,  is  re- 
ferred to  :  i(  He  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and 
with  fire."  There  is  no  more  proof  that  in  these  texts  the 
fire  and  water  are  the  Holy  Ghost,  than  there  is  that  "  the 
washing  of  regeneration,"  in  the  passage  under  review,  is 
"  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  Nor  can  we  admit 
the  notion  that  the  former  clause  means  the  new  birth, 
spiritual  regeneration,  and  the  latter  something  else. 
u  The  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost"  obviously  embraces 
the  new  birth,  if  it  is  not  restricted  to  it. 

We  suppose  that  "  the  washing,"  hovtsov,  the  laver  or 
bath  "  of  regeneration,"  means  baptism.  As  baptism  is  the 
symbol  of  the  new  birth,  the  fathers  styled  it  rtaTnyysvs via, 
regeneration— -the  term  used  by  the  Jews  in  reference  to 
(heir  proselyte  baptism.  In  addition  to  its  symbolical 
character,  it  is  federal  in  its  nature,  exhibiting  the  pro- 
mise and  imposing  the  obligation  of  a  death  unto  sin  and 
a  new  birth  unto  righteousness.  It  was  natural  enough 
to  give  it  the  name  of  that  of  which  it  is  the  symbol  and 
pledge.  In  the  same  way  we  call  the  bread  and  wine  in 
the  Lord's  supper,  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ — the 
former  representing  the  latter.  The  apostle,  according  to 
some,  used  the  term  regeneration  in  this  tropical  sense. 

But  it  is  to  be  observed,  St.  Paul  does  not  say  :  "  Accord- 
ing to  his  mercy  he  saved  us  by  regeneration  and  the  re- 
newing of  the  Holy  Ghost."  His  language  is :  "  the 
washing,"  or  laver  "of  regeneration."  This  may  mean 
the  washing  effected  by  regeneration,  or  the  washing 
symbolical  of  regeneration.  If  the  former,  then  "  regene- 
ration" stands  for  baptism,  according  to  the  patristic 
idea:  if  the  latter,  then  "the  washing"  means  baptism, 
and  regeneration  means  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost — ■ 
agreeably  to  the  common  import  of  the  term — and  is  joined 
to  the  washing  to  limit  the  idea.  It  is  not  every  washing 
that  is  baptism — that  washing  is  alone  baptism  which  is 
the  washing  of  regeneration — an  application  of  the  ele- 
ment as  a  solemn  symbol  and  pledge  of  the  regenerating 
grace  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 


152 


USE  OF  BAPTISM. 


If  it  be  said  that  this  makes  baptism  as  well  as  regene- 
ration, instrumental  of  our  salvation,  we  reply  :  it  certainly 
does.  Every  thing  that  God  promises  or  commands  con- 
duces to  our  salvation.  It  docs  not  follow  that  baptism  is 
an  empty  sign,  because  it  is  not  regeneration.  It  is  indis- 
pensable to  membership  in  the  church,  and  in  other  re- 
spects, yet  to  be  noticed,  fills  an  important  province  in  tho 
economy  of  salvation.  "  The  use  of  it  is  greatly  profita- 
ble :  the  neglect  is  inexcusable ;  but  the  contempt  is 
damnable." 

Hooker  inquires  again:  "What  purpose  had  the 
apostle  in  giving  men  advice  to  receive  outward  baptism, 
and  persuading  them  it  did  avail  to  the  remission  of 
sins  ?" 

In  what  a  sophistical  manner  is  this  question  stated  ! 
The  passage  thus  mangled  is  -Acts  ii.  38  :  "  Repent  and 
be  baptized,  every  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ, 
for  the  remission  of  sins;  and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of 
the  Holy  Ghost."  Is  the  remission  of  sins  appended  to 
baptism  in  this  text,  or  to  repentance  and  faith,  of  which 
baptism  is  the  public  and  divinely  authorized  mode  of  pro- 
fession ?  Unquestionably  the  latter.  For  Simon  Magus 
was  baptized,  and  yet  with  regard  to  the  spiritual  benefits 
in  question,  Peter  tells  him,  "  Thou  hast  neither  part  nor 
lot  in  this  matter,  for  thy  heart  is  not  right  in  the  sight 
of  God.  Repent  therefore  of  this  thy  wickedness,  and 
pray  God,  if  perhaps  the  thought  of  thine  heart  may  be 
forgiven  thee;  for  I  perceive  that  thou  art  in  the  gall  of 
bitterness,  and  in  the  bond  of  iniquity."  Acts  viii.  On 
the  other  hand,  those  spiritual  blessings  were  enjoyed  by 
Cornelius  and  his  friends,  who  had  both  repentance  and 
faith,  although  they  were  not  baptized.  Acts  x.  And  on 
the  same  terms  Magus  himself  might  have  secured  the 
"remission  of  sins,"  at  any  time  after  his  baptism. 

A  candid  examination  of  those  texts  which  are  ad- 
duced in  support  of  the  dogma  of  baptismal  regeneration 
and  baptismal  justification,  shows  that  they  favor  no  such 
absurdity.  And  it  is  worthy  of  observation  that  baptism 
is  usually  associated  in  the  Scriptures  with  some  spiritual 


TIIREE-FOLD  END  OF  BAPTISM. 


15* 


duty  or  exercise  of  the  mind ;  and  this  is  generally  done 
in  such  a  way  as  to  indicate  the  formal;  external,  and 
emblematical  character  of  the  former. 

Thus,  John  iii.  5  :  "  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water, 
and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
God."  Acts  ii.  38:  "  Repent  and  be  baptized  V  Acts 
viii.  36-38  :  "  And  the  eunuch  said,  See,  here  is  water ; 
what  doth  hinder  me  to  be  baptized  ?  And  Philip  said, 
If  thou  believest  with  all  thine  heart,  thou  mayest."  Acts 
xxii.  16  :  "  Arise,  and  be  baptized,  and  wash  away  thy 
sins,  calling  on  the  name  of  the  Lord."  Eph.  v.  25,  26  : 
u  Christ  also  loved  the  church,  and  gave  himself  for  it ; 
that  he  might  sanctify  and  cleanse  it  with  the  washing  of 
water,  by  the  word."  Titus  iii.  5  :  "  He  saved  us  by  the 
washing  of  regeneration  and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 
Heb.  x.  22  :  H  Having  our  hearts  sprinkled  from  an  evil 
conscience  and  our  bodies  washed  with  pure  water." 
1  Pet.  iii.  21  :  "  Baptism  doth  also  now  save  us,  (not  the 
putting  away  of  the  filth  of  the  flesh,  but  the  answer  of 
a  good  conscience  before  God,)  by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus 
Christ."  In  this  last  passage  the  internal  and  spiritual 
act,  corresponding  to  the  external  and  formal,  is  carefully 
distinguished  from  the  latter,  though  metonymically  de- 
signated by  its  name. 


SECTION  II. — THREE-FOLD  END  OF  BAPTISM. 

Having  exhibited  the  doctrine  of  baptismal  regenera- 
tion, and  shown  its  repugnance  to  Scripture,  reason,  ob- 
servation, and  experience,  we  are  prepared  to  answer  the 
question,  What  is  the  use  of  baptism?  Does  it  follow 
that  it  is  an  empty  symbol,  because  it  does  not  really  im- 
part what  it  typifies  ? 

There  are  some,  such  as  the  Socinians,  who  seem  to 
take  this  view  of  the  ordinance.  And  Calvin  appears  to 
reduce  us  to  the  necessity  of  embracing  one  or  the  other 
of  these  alternatives.  Writing  to  Melancthon,  he  says : 
u  Luther  professed  through  his  life,  that  all  he  contended 
7* 


USE  OF  BAPTISM. 


for  in  the  sc^ramental  controversy,  was  the  efficacy  of  the 
sacraments.  Well,  it  is  agreed  that  they  are  not  empty 
symbols,  but  really  impart  what  they  typify — that  in 
baptism  the  efficacy  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  present  to 
cleanse  and  regenerate  us." 

With  the  Reformer's  leave,  however,  we  venture  to 
suggest  that  there  is  no  necessity  of  admitting  either  of 
these  alternatives.  Baptism  does  not  really  impart  what 
\t  typifies ;  yet  it  is  far  from  being  an  empty  symbol. 

When  we  turn  to  the  Scriptures  we  find  that  baptism 
has  an  end  worthy  of  its  divine  institution.  It  subserves 
a  three-fold  purpose.  It  signifies  to  us  the  mercy  and 
grace  of  God— it  ratifies  our  title  to  covenant  blessings 
and  pledges  our  discharge  of  corresponding  obligations — 
and  it  ministers  to  our  sanctification. 

1.  As  it  is  the  sign  of  the  gospel  covenant,  it  signifies 
to  us  the  mercy  and  grace  of  God. 

This  covenant  is  in  substance  the  same  which  was  made 
to  Abraham  5  for  St.  Paul  says  it  u  was  confirmed  of  God 
in  Christ,"  "  four  hundred  and  thirty  years"  before  the 
Mosaic  law  was  given.  Accordingly,  circumcision,  as  the 
sign  of  this  covenant,  "was  of  the  fathers,"  namely, 
Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob.  This  covenant  was  renewed 
and  amplified  by  the  Author  and  Finisher  of  our  faith, 
and  baptism  was  appointed  to  be  the  sign  thereof.  And 
thus  "  the  blessing  of  Abraham"  has  "  come  on  the  Gen- 
tiles through  Jesus  Christ."  u  For  as  many  of  you  as 
have  been  baptized  into  Christ,  have  put  on  Christ.  And 
if  ye  be  Christ's  then  are  ye  Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs 
according  to  the  promise."  Gal.  iii. 

Whenever,  therefore,  baptism  is  administered,  there  is  a 
recognition  of  the  covenant  of  grace  and  a  reference  to  its 
merciful  provisions.  When  we  gaze  upon  the  bow  in  the 
cloud,  we  behold  a  token  of  the  covenant  which  God  made 
with  the  second  father  of  our  race,  that  the  world  should  no 
more  be  deluged  with  the  waters  of  a  flood.  Whan  we  break 
the  bread  and  pour  forth  the  wine  in  the  Lord's  supper, 
we  have  a  token  of  the  new  and  everlasting  covenant 
which  was  ratified  by  the  sacrifice  of  the  Son  of  God;  of 


THREE-FOLD  END  OF  BAPTISM. 


155 


which  this  feast  is  the  memento.  In  like  manner  when 
baptism  is  administered,  we  have  a  token  of  the  covenant, 
particularly  in  reference  to  the  promise  of  the  Spirit,  of 
whose  sanctitifying  influences  this  ordinance  is  the  beau- 
tiful and  expressive  symbol.  For  this  reason  baptism  by 
water  and  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  are  so  frequently  as- 
sociated together  in  the  New  Testament. 

It  is  impossible  to  conceive  of  any  action  more  sugges- 
tive of  a  sanctifying  agency,  than  the  application  of  clean 
water  to  the  person.  It  finely  represents  the  promise  of 
the  evangelical  covenant :  "  Then  will  I  sprinkle  clean 
water  upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be  clean. "  "I  will  pour 
my  Spirit  upon  thy  seed?  and  my  blessing  upon  thy  off- 
spring." Baptism  cannot  be  properly  administered  with- 
out suggesting  this  to  the  mind ;  and  thus  the  senses  are 
pressed  into  the  service  of  religion,  and  we  have  a  visible 
exponent  of  the  mystery  of  our  sanctification.  The  water 
poured  upon  the  subject  in  the  washing  of  regeneration 
strikingly  represents  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
which  is  shed  upon  us  abundantly  through  Jesus  Christ 
our  Saviour.  The  element  is  clean  water,  to  denote  the 
holiness  of  the  divine  Agent  in  our  sanctification  and  of 
the  effect  produced  by  his  operations;  and  it  is  poured 
upon  us,  to  denote  that  the  influence  by  which  we  are 
made  new  creatures  in  Christ  Jesus  is  "  from  above." 

Such  being  the  nature  of  this  ordinance,  if  it  be  not 
tampered  with  in  the  administration,  it  cannot  but  edify 
the  serious  spectator.  It  can  be  readily  conceived  how 
greatly  it  might  be  made  to  minister  to  the  use  of  edify- 
ing, when  performed  by  a  spiritually-minded,  intelligent, 
and  judicious  administrator.  Its  celebration  is  therefore 
very  properly  confined  to  the  ministers  of  the  word,  who 
are  supposed  to  be — at  least,  they  are  required  and  ex- 
pected to  be — faithful  stewards  of  the  mysteries  of  God. 
1  Cor.  iv. 

2.  Baptism  ratifies  our  title  to  the  covenant  blessings 
which  it  symbolizes  and  pledges  our  discharge  of  corres- 
ponding obligations. 

The  federal  character  of  the  ordinance  implies  this.  It 


156 


USE  OF  BAPTISM. 


is  not  merely  a  sign  to  denote  the  blessings  and  obliga« 
tions  of  the  covenant,  but  also  a  signum  confirmans,  a 
seal  or  pledge  confirming  to  us  the  bestowment  of  the 
former,  and  binding  us  to  the  performance  of  the  latter. 

There  are  two  parties  to  the  covenant :  God  is  one  party 
and  we  are  the  other.  The  instrument  is  drawn  up  and 
its  conditions  prescribed  by  God  himself,  and  we  are  called 
upon  to  subscribe  the  same.  "  For  this  is  the  covenant 
that  I  will  make  with  the  house  of  Israel,  after  those 
days,  saith  the  Lord  :  I  will  put  my  laws  into  their  mind 
and  write  them  in  their  hearts ;  and  I  will  be  to  them  a 
God,  and  they  shall  be  to  me  a  people.  For  I  will  be 
merciful  to  their  unrighteousness,  and  their  sins  and  their 
iniquities  will  I  remember  no  more."  Heb.  viii.  It  is 
needless  to  prove  that  this  was  the  substance  of  the  Abra- 
hamic  covenant  of  which  circumcision  was  the  seal,  and 
that  in  its  new  publication  it  more  fully  develops  its  es- 
sential elements  and  more  distinctly  exhibits  its  catholic 
complexion.  This  the  apostle  argues  at  length  in  the 
fourth  of  Romans. 

Every  thing,  therefore,  necessary  to  our  salvation,  and 
especially  sanctifying  grace,  is  pledged  to  us  on  the  part 
of  God  in  this  covenant  j  and  baptism  is  a  pledge  by  which 
it  is  guaranteed  to  us.  As  the  ordinance  was  instituted 
by  God  and  is  celebrated  on  his  authority  and  by  his  minis- 
ters, it  confirms  to  us  every  stipulation  of  the  covenant, 
and  being  joined  with  the  word  of  promise  and  the  wit- 
nessing Spirit  in  our  hearts,  it  leaves  no  room  to  doubt 
that  we  shall  obtain  mercy  and  find  grace  to  help  in  time 
of  need. 

On  our  part  the  pledge  is  no  less  specific  and  important. 
If  the  Most  High  is  to  be  our  God,  we  are  to  be  his  peo- 
ple.   This  implies  three  things  : — 

First.  The  renunciation  of  all  other  authority.  We 
cannot  swear  allegiance  to  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghost,  without  abjuring  the  trinity  which  holds  usurped 
sway  over  us  in  our  natural  state — the  world,  the  flesh,  and 
the  devil.    Hence  we  renounce  them  all  in  our  baptism. 

Second.  Faith  in  God.    As  baptism  is  the  exponent  of 


THREE-FOLD  END  OF  BAPTISM. 


157 


faith,  it  pledges  us  to  believe  the  whole  revelation  of  God ; 
arid  that  we  may  do  so  rationally,  it  binds  us  to  search 
the  Scriptures  according  to  our  ability  to  do  so,  to  canvass 
the  evidences  of  Christianity,  and  to  use  every  means 
within  our  reach  to  understand  the  record  which  God  has 
given  us  of  his  Son. 

Third.  Holy  obedience.  To  obey  God  is  a  natural 
and  necessary  duty;  but  when  we  are  solemnly  pledged 
to  obedience,  that  duty  assumes  a  more  imperative  and 
impressive  character.  Baptism  pledges  us  to  holiness. 
"  Know  ye  not,  that  so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into 
Jesus  Christ,  were  baptized  into  his  death.  Therefore 
we  are  buried  with  him  by  baptism  into  death,  that  like 
as  Christ  was  raised  up  from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the 
Father,  even  so  we  also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life." 
Rom.  vi.  God  pledges  us  sanctifying  grace  on  condition 
that  we  give  that  grace  free  range  in  our  hearts  and  full 
development  in  our  lives — co-operating  with  it  to  the  ut- 
most of  our  ability;  and  this  we  solemnly  pledge  to  do 
in  our  baptism.  What  an  incentive  to  holiness — what  a 
dissuasive  from  sin!  u  Jerome  says,  Certainly  he  that 
thinks  upon  the  last  judgment  advisedly,  cannot  sin  then  : 
so  he  that  says  with  St.  Augustin,  Procede  in  confessione, 
fides  mea,  Let  me  make  every  day  to  God  this  confession, 
Domine  Deus  mens,  Sancte,  Sancte,  Sancte  Domine  Dens 
mens,  0  Lord  my  God,  0  Holy,  Holy,  Holy  Lord  my 
God  :  In  nomine  tuo  baptizatus  sum,  I  consider  that  I  was 
baptized  in  thy  name,  and  what  thou  promisedst  me,  and 
what  I  promised  thee  then,  and  can  I  sin  this  sin  ?  Can 
this  sin  stand  with  those  conditions,  those  stipulations, 
which  passed  between  us  then  ?"  Viewed  in  this  light, 
how  important  is  this  holy  ordinance  ! 

.And  as  we  do  not  wish  our  offspring  to  be  left  out  of 
the  bond  of  the  covenant,  how  careful  should  we  be  to 
make  them  formally,  what  they  are  really,  from  their 
birth,  parties  to  this  great  transaction.  We  have  no  right 
to  bind  them  to  their  injury ;  but  we  have  a  right,  and 
it  is  our  duty  to  exercise  it,  to  bind  them  to  their  advan- 
tage.   We  can  avouch  the  Lord  to  be  their  God ;  and  in 


158 


USE  OF  BAPTISM. 


after  life  they  will  have  no  right  to  absolve  themsexvea 
from  the  obligation  thus  assumed  in  their  behalf.  If  they 
do  so,  they  do  so  at  their  peril.  If  they  wash  away  their 
baptism  and  despise  their  birthright,  they  must  abide  the 
consequences  of  such  daring  profanity.  But  if  they  are 
duly  instructed  with  regard  to  their  baptismal  obligations, 
and  brought  up  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the 
Lord,  the  probabilities  are  vastly  in  their  favor  that  they 
will  have  no  disposition  to  renounce  their  baptism.  The 
very  fact  that  they  were  dedicated  to  the  Lord,  and  that 
the  vows  of  G-od  have  been  upon  them  from  their  infancy, 
may  be  used  as  a  powerful  argument  to  induce  them  to 
assume  the  profession  and  practice  of  piety,  in  redemption 
of  those  solemn  vows.  As  they  never  object  to  the  per- 
sonal appropriation  of  a  temporal  benefit  because  it  was 
secured  to  them  by  their  parents  or  by  others  in  their 
unconscious  infancy,  consistency,  united  with  gratitude, 
will  move  them  to  avail  themselves  of  the  spiritual  bene- 
fits bound  up  in  the  covenant  of  grace,  by  discharging  the 
conditions  on  which  their  bestowment  is  suspended.  This 
is  a  powerful  argument  for  infant  baptism )  but  it  is  ad- 
duced in  this  place  to  show  the  practical  use  which  this 
ordinance  subserves,  viewed  under  the  idea  of  a  seal  or 
pledge. 

3.  Baptism  ministers  to  our  sanctification. 

It  does  this  partly  by  its  influence  and  bearing  as  a 
sign  and  seal.  We  cannot  seriously  reflect  upon  the  sym- 
bolical and  pignorative  character  of  this  ordinance  without 
learning  the  privileges  and  duties  appertaining  to  us  as 
parties  to  the  gospel  covenant,  and  without  being  incited 
to  reduce  the  former  to  experience  and  the  latter  to  prac- 
tice Whatever  is  suggestive  of  holy  thoughts  and  emo- 
tions— whatever  brings  the  beauty  of  holiness  before  the 
mind — whatever  impresses  us  with  its  necessity  and  points 
out  the  mode  of  its  attainment,  must  minister  to  our  sanc- 
tification. Baptism  does  all  this.  It  does  so  too,  not  only  at 
the  time  when  it  is  administered,  or  when  we  ourselves  are 
the  subjects,  but  also  when  we  witness  the  baptism  of  others, 
or  reflect  upon  our  own  baptism,  howsoever  long  since 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 


159 


it  may  have  been  administered.  Thus  it  is  a  standing, 
perpetual  monitor,  whose  admonitions  are  ever  appropriate, 
forcible,  and  salutary — a  stereotyped  lesson  which,  like 
holy  writ,  of  which  it  is  the  visible  exponent,  may  be  read 
over  a  thousand  times  without  losing  its  interest  and  power 
to  affect  the  soul. 

But  baptism  ministers  to  our  sanctification  in  another 
respect.  It  introduces  us  to  the  communion  of  saints. 
We  thus  have  the  benefit  of  their  holy  examples  to  stimu- 
late us  in  the  pursuit  and  practice  of  holiness.  We  have 
their  exhortations  to  stir  us  up  when  we  are  dilatory :  we 
have  their  reproofs  to  reclaim  us  when  we  wander  from 
the  path  of  obedience  :  we  have  their  counsels  to  guide  us 
in  the  good  and  right  way  :  we  have  their  encouragement 
to  solace  and  sustain  us  amid  the  reverses  and  difficulties 
of  our  course ;  and  in  connection  with  all  these,  and  above 
them  all,  we  have  their  prayers  for  the  prosperous  issue 
of  all  our  religious  endeavors.  Whatever  means  of  grace 
and  aids  to  holy  living  are  found  in  the  church  inure  to 
us  by  virtue  of  this  initiating  ordinance.  If  we  contemn 
baptism,  we  are  not  entitled  to  claim  any  of  the  "  good 
which  the  Lord  hath  spoken  concerning  Israel/'  But 
through  this  ordinance  we  substantiate  our  title  to  all  the 
privileges  of  the  household  of  faith — a  title  sure  and  inde- 
feasible, so  long  as  we  discharge  the  obligations  which  our 
baptism  involves. 

In  the  foregoing  respects,  baptism  ministers  materially 
to  our  sanctification  and  final  salvation. 


SECTION  III. — OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 

Some  object  to  the  province  we  have  assigned  to  bap- 
tism, as  the  ordinance  of  initiation  into  the  church. 

1.  One  class  of  objectors  assert  that  baptism  is  not  a 
church  ordinance  at  all — that  it  is  administered  out  of  the 
church,  and  the  subject  thereof  is  not  made  a  member  but 
b}'  some  act  subsequent  to  his  baptism. 

Thus  John  Bunyan,  in  his  "  Differences  in  Judgment 


160 


13  SE  OF  BAPTISM. 


about  Water  Baptism,  no  Bar  to  Communion  — "Bap. 
tism  makes  thee  no  member  of  the  church,  neither  doth  it 
make  thee  a  visible  saint :  it  giveth  thee,  therefore,  neither 
right  to,  nor  being  of  membership  at  all." — "No  man 
baptizcth  by  virtue  of  his  office  in  the  church  :  no  man  is 
baptized  by  virtue  of  his  membership  there." — "  Baptism 
is  not  the  initiating  ordinance." — "  Water  baptism  hath 
nothing  to  do  in  a  church,  as  a  church :  it  neither  bringeth 
us  into  the  church,  nor  is  any  part  of  our  worship  when 
we  come  there." 

"  Baptism,"  says  Dr.  Gill,  "  is  not  a  church  ordinance  : 
I  mean,  it  is  not  an  ordinance  administered  in  the  church, 
but  oat  of  it,  and  in  order  to  admission  into  it,  and  com- 
munion with  it :  it  is  preparatory  to  it,  and  a  qualification 
for  it :  it  does  not  make  a  person  a  member  of  a  church, 
or  admit  him  into  a  visible  church.  Persons  must  first 
be  baptized  and  then  added  to  the  church,  as  the  three 
thousand  converts  were.  A  church  has  nothing  to  do  with 
the  baptism  of  any,  but  to  be  satisfied  that  they  are  bap- 
tized, before  they  are  admitted  into  communion  with  it." 

Very  few,  we  believe,  endorse  this  erroneous  view  of 
the  subject;  and  it  may  be  doubted  if  it  ever  would  have 
found  favor  with  any,  had  they  not  confounded  a  particu- 
lar church  with  the  church  catholic. 

It  may  be  true  that  the  mere  act  of  baptism  does 
not  make  one  a  member  of  any  particular  church,  but 
it  does  not  follow  that  it  does  not  make  one  a  member  of 
the  catholic  church  of  Christ.  When  Philip  baptized  the 
eunuch,  he  did  not  make  him  by  that  act  a  member 
of  the  church  at  Jerusalem,  or  Samaria;  and  as  there  was 
no  church  in  the  desert  where  he  was  baptized,  or  in  Ethi- 
opia, where  he  resided — his  baptism  made  him  a  member 
of  no  particular  church ;  but  it  made  him  a  member  of  the 
holy  catholic  church,  and  entitled  him  to  recognition  by 
the  fciithful  in  any  place  where  there  was  a  particular 
church,  so  long  as  he  was  true  to  his  baptismal  obligations ; 
and  indeed  it  constituted  him  the  nucleus  of  a  particular 
church,  in  his  distant  heathen  home.  It  was  therefore  as 
truly  an  u  initiating  ordinance"  to  him,  as  if  it  had  intro- 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 


*  161 


duced  him  to  the  immediate  society  of  the  apostles  and 
brethren  at  Jerusalem. 

Baptism  is  the  ordinance  of  initiation  in  the  Christian 
church,  in  the  same  way  that  circumcision  was  the  ordi- 
nance of  initiation  in  the  Jewish  church.  Whatever  other 
ceremonies  obtained  in  the  case  of  the  recognition  of  mem- 
bers in  the  Jewish  church — particularly  in  regard  to  syna- 
gogue privileges  and  obligations — no  one  was  considered  a 
Jew  until  he  was  circumcised  according  to  the  law,  and 
no  one  who  was  thus  circumcised  was  considered  an  alien 
from  the  commonwealth  of  Israel  until  he  committed  some 
crime  by  which  he  cancelled  his  circumcision.  The  ana- 
logy obtains  in  regard  to  baptism,  as  the  ordinance  of 
initiation  into  the  Christian  church.* 

2.  Another  class  of  objectors  to  the  common  view  of 
baptism,  as  the  initiating  ordinance,  affirm  that  none  are 
eligible  to  baptism,  but  those  who  are  already  members  of 
the  church. 

Thus  the  Directory  of  the  Westminster  Assembly  teaches 
u  that  the  seed  and  posterity  of  the  faithful,  born  within 
the  church,  have  by  their  birth  interest  in  the  covenant 
and  right  to  the  seal  of  it — that  they  are  Christians  and 
federally  holy  before  baptism,  and  therefore  they  are  bap- 
tized." 

And  so  in  the  Larger  Catechism  :  "  Baptism  is  not  to  be 
administered  to  any  that  are  out  of  the  visible  church,  and 
so  strangers  from  the  covenant  of  promise,  till  they  profess 
their  faith  in  Christ,  and  obedience  to  him ;  but  infants 
descending  from  parents,  either  both  or  but  one  of  them 


*  On  Good  Friday,  1852,  the  Rev.  R.  Herschel  baptized  a  Russian 
Jew  in  Trinity  Chapel,  London,  in  the  usual  form,  adding,  "We  admit 
you,  not  as  a  member  of  any  particular  sect,  but  as  a  member  of  Christ's 
church."  Mr.  Jansen,  the  party  baptized,  was  thus  made  a  member  of 
the  catholic  church,  but  not  of  any  particular  church — the  minister 
baptizing  him  being  employed  by  a  society  consisting  of  persons  be« 
longing  to  various  particular  churches.  "All  the  apostles  and  minis, 
ters  of  religion  were  commanded  to  baptize  in  water,  in  the  name  of 
the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost ;  and  this  was  an  admission  to  Christi 
anity,  not  to  any  sect  of  it."  See  Jer.  Taylors  Dissuasive  from  Popery 
p.  ii.,  b.  i.,  sec.  iii. 


162 


USE  OP  BAPTISM. 


professing  faith  in  Christ,  and  obedience  to  him,  are,  in 
that  respect,  within  the  covenant,  and  are  to  be  baptized. " 

(t  The  children  of  professing  Christians,"  says  Dr.  Miller, 
'fare  already  in  the  church.  They  are  born  members. 
They  are  baptized  because  they  were  members.  They 
received  the  seal  of  the  covenant  because  they  are  already 
in  the  covenant  by  virtue  of  their  birth." ; 

This  birth-right  theory,  therefore,  does  not  consider 
baptism  as  the  door  of  admission  into  the  church.  The 
advocates  of  this  system  do  not  administer  baptism  as  the 
formal  medium  of  initiation  into  membership,  but  as  the 
recognition  of  the  birth -right  membership  previously 
existent.  They  do  not  administer  the  ordinance  to  any 
infants  except  such  as  are  horn  of  Christian  parentage — 
one,  at  least,  of  the  parents  must  be  a  member  of  the 
church.  Xo  matter  if  the  unfortunate  child  be  u  born  in 
our  house,  or  bought  with  our  money  of  any  stranger  that 
is  not  of  our  seed/'  Genesis  xvii.  12,  13,  this  birth-right 
basis  denies  him  a  privilege  which  was  secured  by  a  pro- 
vision of  the  Abrahamic  dispensation  to  a  child  similarly 
circumstanced.  Most  certainly  such  an  ecclesiastical 
ostracism  receives  no  endorsement  from  a  dispensation 
whose  benevolently-aggressive  character  is  never  more 
v  >limely  illustrated  than  when  its  ministers  are  eDgaged 
in  discipling  all  nations,  introducing  them  to  the  fold  of 
Christ  by  the  ordinance  of  his  own  appointment. 

It  is  worthy  of  remark  that  this  birth-right  basis  of 
church-membership  is  inconsistent  with  a  leadiag,  though 
equally  erroneous,  principle  of  the  theological  system  of 
those  divines  by  whom  it  is  asserted. 

They  maintain  that  the  church  is  constituted  of  a  cer- 
tain definite  number  of  men,  who,  before  the  foundation 
of  the  world,  were  separated  from  the  common  mass  ;: 
transgressors  by  the  electing  grace  of  God,  and  who  are 
therefore  to  be  considered  members  of  the  mystical  body 
of  Christ,  though  for  the  greater  portion  of  their  lives 
they  may  give  no  evidence  of  a  vital  union  with  him. 
This  vital  union,  however,  will  in  every  case  be  secured 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 


163 


by  "  effectual  calling,"  even  though,  in  some  cases,  it  may 
not  be  consummated  until  the  article  of  death. 

Thus  Dr.  Owen — Glory  of  Christ,  c.  x.  : — "In  order 
unto  the  production  and  perfecting  of  the  new  creation, 
God  did  from  eternity,  in  the  holy  purpose  of  his  will, 
prepare,  and  in  design  set  apart  unto  himself,  that  portion 
of  mankind  whereof  it  was  to  consist.  Hereby  they  were 
the  only  peculiar  matter  that  was  to  be  wrought  upon  by 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  the  glorious  fabric  of  the  church 
erected  out  of  it.  What  was  said  it  may  be  of  the 
natural  body,  by  the  psalmist,  is  true  of  the  mystical  body 
of  Christ,  which  is  principally  intended,  Ps.  cxxxix.  15, 16, 
6  My  substance  was  not  hid  from  thee,  when  I  was  made 
in  secret,  and  curiously  wrought  in  the  lowest  parts  of 
the  earth.  Thine  eyes  did  see  my  substance  yet  being 
unperfect,  and  in  thy  book  all  my  members  were  written, 
which  in  continuance  were  fashioned,  when  as  yet  there 
was  none  of  them/  The  substance  of  the  church 
whereof  it  was  to  be  formed,  was  under  the  eye  of  God, 
as  proposed  in  the  decree  of  election ;  yet  was  it  as  such 
unperfect.  It  was  not  formed  or  shaped  into  members  of 
the  mystical  body.  But  they  were  all  written  in  the 
book  of  life.  And  in  pursuance  of  the  purpose  of  God, 
there  they  are  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  the  whole  course  and 
continuance  of  time  in  their  several  generations,  fashioned 
into  the  shape  designed  for  them." 

This  view  is  substantially  entertained  by  all  those 
divines  who  interpret  the  ninth  of  Romans,  and  similar 
passages  of  Scripture,  of  the  unconditional,  personal,  and 
eternal  election  and  reprobation  of  the  children  of  men. 
It  is  a  little  remarkable,  however,  that  u  the  prince  of 
divines,"  as  Dr.  Owen  is  sometimes  called,  should  have 
recourse  to  the  one  hundred  and  thirty-ninth  psalm  to 
sustain  his  theory.  Every  child  that  reads  this  fine  ode 
must  know  that  the  psalmist  speaks  in  the  quoted  passage 
of  one  of  the  profound  mysteries  of  nature ;  and  neither 
the  terms  of  the  text  nor  the  scope  of  the  context  wilJ 
warrant  so  outrageous  and  far-fetched  a  gloss  as  the  doctor 
places  upon  it,  when  he  says  that  the  scheme  of  election 


164 


USE  OF  BAPTISM. 


"is  principally  intended/'  His  theory,  however,  called 
for  support,  and  Scripture  being  slow  and  chary  in  fur- 
nishing plain  passages  for  that  purpose,  he  had  recourse 
to  this  curious  and  figurative  text,  which  indeed  furnishes 
as  much  support  to  this  system  as  any  other — that  is  to 
say,  just  none  at  all ! 

The  Bible  nowhere  affirms  that  the  church  is  supplied 
with  its  members  by  such  an  act  of  pretention  as  is  here 
affirmed.  It  does  indeed  speak  of  an  election  which  took 
place  before  the  subjects  thereof  were  born;  but  this  was 
not  a  personal,  individual  election,  but  rather  an  election 
of  communities — first  of  Jews,  then  of  Gentiles — to 
spiritual  privileges,  which  the  parties,  in  their  individual, 
personal  capacity,  might  forfeit  or  secure,  by  the  perverse 
or  proper  use  of  their  moral  agency.  Rom.  ix.-xi. 
But  it  speaks  of  another  election  which  takes  place  after 
the  birth  of  the  subjects  thereof,  and  in  every  case  condi- 
tional, being  suspended  upon  "  repentance  towards  God, 
and  faith  towards  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  John  v.  40; 
Acts  ii.  38;  iii.  19;  viii.  36,  37;  xvi.  30,  31;  xx.  21; 
Eph.  i.  13 ;  Gal.  iii.  26-29 ;  Heb.  ii.-iv.  This  election 
is  not  irreversible;  but  there  is  an  election  which  is  irre- 
versible— it  is  personal  too — but  then  it  is  conditional : 
"  Give  diligence  to  make  your  calling  and  election  sure ; 
for  if  ye  do  these  things,  ye  shall  never  fall ;  for  so  an 
entrance  shall  be  ministered  unto  you  abundantly  into  the 
everlasting  kingdom  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ."  2  Pet.  i.  10,  11.  "  Blessed  are  they  that  do 
his  commandments  that  they  may  have  right  to  the  tree 
of  life,  and  may  enter  in  through  the  gates  into  the  city." 
Rev.  xxii.  14.  Compare  Matt.  vii. ;  xxv;  Mark  xvi.  16; 
John  v.  28,  29;  1  Cor.  ix.  27;  2  Thess.  i. 

Dr.  Owen's  allegory  stands  but  a  poor  chance  when 
confronted  with  these  plain  and  uncompromising  passages 
of  Holy  Writ.  We  could  multiply  texts  of  this  complex- 
ion, but  one  citation  is  sufficient  to  show  that  the  impeni- 
tent and  unbelieving  sinner  is  not  enrolled  in  the  book  of 
life.  We  are  under  no  obligation  to  credit  the  absurdity 
that  a  man's  membership  in  the  church  was  irreversibly 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 


1C5 


determined  thousands  of  ages  before  he  was  born  ;  or  that 
while  he  is  making  God  to  serve  with  his  sins,  and  wea- 
rying him  with  his  iniquities,  (Isa.  xliii.  24.)  he  sustains 
any  other  relation  to  the  great  Head  of  the  church  than 
that  of  a  miserable  reprobate,  in  common  with  all  other 
transgressors  —  eligible,  indeed,  to  admission  into  the 
household  of  faith  by  a  proper  improvement  of  the  grace 
which  is  freely  offered  to  all ;  but  until  then,  an  "  alien 
from  the  commonwealth  of  Israel,  and  a  stranger  from  the 
covenants  of  promise."  Eph.  ii.  12. 

It  is  no  part  of  our  present  duty,  however,  to  enlarge 
upon  the  absurdity  of  this  election  basis  of  church-mem- 
bership. We  have  called  attention  to  it  to  show  its  incom- 
patibility with  the  birth-right  basis,  although  both  princi- 
ples are  embraced  in  one  and  the  same  theological  system. 

Observe,  all  children  of  Christian  parentage  are  con- 
sidered members  of  the  church,  and  yet  on  the  foregoing 
basis  of  fore-ordination,  only  a  small  number  of  them  are 
"  elect  infants,"  and  consequently  all  the  remainder  are  re- 
probates— they  have  not,  nor  can  they  ever  have,  nor  was 
it  intended  they  ever  should  have,  any  part  or  lot  in  the 
matter.  If  any  of  these  reprobate  infants  die  in  infancy, 
they  do  not  die  in  connection  with  the  church  on  earth, 
nor  can  they  be  admitted  into  the  church  in  heaven.*  If 
they  survive  the  period  of  infancy,  their  case  remains 
unchanged:  it  is  in  vain  for  them  to  say,  "We  have 
Abraham  to  our  father,"  they  are  the  limbs  of  Satan, 
and  nothing  can  constitute  them  the  members  of  Christ. 
The  number  of  both  parties  is  so  definite  that  it  can 

*  Thus  Parasus,  speaking  of  infants  who  die  before  performing  any  act, 
says,  "  They  will,  like  others,  be  saved  merely  according  to  grace,  or 
damned  according  to  nature,  as  children  of  wrath."  And  Peter  Mar- 
tyr :  "  I  dare  not  affirm  that  any  dying  without  baptism  will  obtain 
salvation.  For  there  are  some  children  of  holy  persons  who  are  not  of 
the  elect:  Ideo  nemini  sic  [sine  baptismo]  decedenti  ausim  peculiari- 
ter  promittere  certain  salutem.  Sunt  enim  aliqui  sanctorum  jilii,  qui 
ad  proedestinationem  non  pertinent."  Loc.  Com.  So  also  Perkins: 
u  There  are  many  infants  of  pious  parents,  who  dying  before  they  have 
the  use  of  reason  will  nevertheless,  on  account  of  original  sin,  be 
damned  :  Multi  sunt  piorum  infantes,  ante  ullum  rationis  usuni  mo  rim 
entes,  tamen  originates  ilia  peccati  labes  hominibits  damnandia  suffe* 
cerit." 


166 


USE  OF  BAPTISM. 


neither  be  diminished  nor  increased.  This  is  the  plain 
and  acknowledged  doctrine  of  those  who  place  the  mem- 
bership of  the  church  on  the  basis  of  election.  Now,  un- 
less it  be  affirmed  that  all  the  children  of  Christian  parents 
are  embraced  in  this  scheme  of  election — which  none  of  its 
abettors  have  the  termeity  to  assert — it  is  obviously  in 
direct  opposition  to  this  theory  to  recognize  their  member- 
ship on  the  ground  of  their  Christian  parentage. 

It  will  not  do  to  say  that  election  makes  them  members 
of  the  invisible  church,  and  Christian  parentage  makes 
them  members  of  the  visible  church.  According  to  the 
theory  in  question,  they  are  baptized  in  virtue  of  their 
birth-right  membership,  and  their  baptism  seals  to  them 
all  the  blessings  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  which  inure  to 
those  alone  who  are  members  of  the  invisible  as  well  as 
the  visible  church.  They  are  all  considered  parties  to  the 
covenant,  from  which  the  reprobate  are  eternally  excluded. 
The  birth-right  basis  is  therefore  utterly  incompatible  with 
the  scheme  of  election,  while  neither  the  one  nor  the  other 
derives  the  slightest  support  from  the  Word  of  God. 

The  patronage  of  St.  Paul,  however,  is  challenged  for  the 
hereditary  basis  of  church-membership  :  "  For  the  unbe- 
lieving husband  is  sanctified  by  the  wife,  and  the  unbe- 
lieving wife  is  sanctified  by  the  husband ;  else  were  your 
children  unclean  j  but  now  are  they  holy."  1  Cor.  vii.  14. 

Numerous  are  the  interpretations  of  this  difficult  pas- 
sage ;  but  as  it  regards  the  terms  holy  and  unclean, 
here  used  of  children  as  the  offspring  of  believing  or  un- 
believing parents,  the  meaning  seems  to  be,  that  if  one  of 
the  parents  were  a  Christian,  the  children  would  be  con- 
secrated to  the  true  God,  and  therefore  would  be  relatively 
holy — not  before  but  after  and  in  consequence  of  baptism 
— whereas  if  both  parties  were  heathens,  the  children,  ac- 
cording to  the  heathen  custom,  would  be  consecrated  to 
false  gods,  and  therefore  would  be  relatively  unclean.* 

*  An  account  of  the  manner  in  which  the  Romans  consecrated  their 
children  to  their  gods,  is  given  by  Tertullian  in  his  Treatise,  De  Anu 
ma,  c.  xxxvii.  xxxix — not  De  Came  Christi,  as  quoted  by  mistake  in 
l>r.  Clarke's  commentary  on  1  Cor.  vii.  14,  where  there  is  a  translation 
of  the  passage. 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 


167 


But  this  does  not  prove  that  the  children,  in  the  former 
case;  were  entitled  to  baptism  by  virtue  of  the  believing 
parent's  faith  ;  or  that  in  the  latter  case,  it  would  be  un- 
lawful to  baptize  them. 

If  the  children  of  heathens  were  in  some  cases  admitted 
to  the  fellowship  of  the  Abrahamic  and  Jewish  churches 
by  circumcision,  there  is  no  reason  that  the  course  de- 
scribed by  Augustin,  may  not  obtain  in  the  Christian 
church  :  "  It  sometimes  happens/'  he  remarks,  "  that  the 
children  of  slaves  are  brought  to  baptism  by  their  master : 
sometimes,  the  parents  being  dead,  friends  alive  under- 
take that  office  :  sometimes,  strangers,  or  virgins  conse- 
crated to  God,  who  neither  have,  nor  can  have  children 
of  their  own,  take  up  infants  in  the  open  streets,  and  so 
offer  them  unto  baptism,  whom  the  cruelty  of  unnatural 
parents  casteth  out,  and  leaveth  to  the  adventure  of  uncer- 
tain pity."  And  surely  the  church  is  not  obliged  to  reject 
the  little  ones  because  the  parents  may  be  alive  and  con- 
senting to  the  consecration.  It  was  somewhat  bold  in 
Dr.  Dwight  to  affirm  :  "  Unbelieving  parents,  St.  Paul  has 
declared,  cannot  offer  their  children  in  baptism  :  and  that, 
notwithstanding  themselves  have  been  baptized."  Ser. 
clx.  ad  Jin.  We  find  no  such  language  in  the  writings 
of  the  apostle. 

Whenever,  therefore,  the  church  can  receive  these  little 
ones  into  her  bosom,  it  is  her  duty  to  do  so ;  and  her 
ministers  ought  to  raise  no  objection  to  this  benevolent 
arrangement  on  the  score  of  unknown,  or  questionable,  or 
wicked  parentage — provided  always,  that  the  guardians  of 
the  children  voluntarily  surrender  them  to  her  maternal 
care,  as  Christianity  admits  of  no  compulsion. 

The  faith  of  the  parent  affects  the  church-membership 
of  the  child  only  in  one  way :  as  a  Christian  he  would  be 
more  likely  to  offer  his  child  to  baptism  than  if  he  were 
an  unbeliever;  and  it  is  in  this  ordinance  the  child  is  forr 
molly  brought  into  union  with  the  church,  while  his  eligi- 
bility to  the  ordinance  is  secured  u  by  the  righteousness 
of  One,  by  whom  the  free  gift  has  come  upon  all  men 
unto  justification  of  life."  Rom.  v.  This  gracious  arrange 


168 


USE  OF  BAPTISM. 


ment  constitutes  a  virtual,  and  baptism  a  formal,  union 
with  the  church.  The  former  is  the  blood-bought  inheri- 
tance of  every  child,  accruing  to  him  from  the  moment 
of  his  birth,  and  is  entirely  independent  of  parental  cha- 
racter; and  neither  reason  nor  revelation  has  placed  the 
latter  on  any  different  basis. 

Those  who  adopt  the  hereditary  principle  are  forced  to 
forbid  a  multitude  of  those  blood-bought  infants  whom 
the  Saviour  has  invited,  to  enter  the  church,  and  they 
will  answer  for  it  to  its  exalted  Head.  The  best  apology 
they  will  be  able  to  make,  is  involuntary  mistake,  which 
no  doubt  will  be  accepted  by  our  merciful  Judge. 

The  truth  on  this  subject,  however,  is  so  obvious  that 
it  cannot  be  altogether  overlooked  or  ignored,  by  the 
advocates  of  the  error  we  have  just  refuted.  Thus  the 
Westminster  Directory,  in  contradiction  of  its  other  in- 
structions on  baptism,  teaches  "  that  children  by  baptism, 
are  solemnly  received  into  the  bosom  of  the  visible  church, 
distinguished  from  the  world  and  them  that  are  without, 
and  united  with  believers."  And  the  Larger  Catechism 
teaches  that  "  baptism  is  a  sacrament  whereby  the  parties 
baptized  are  solemnly  admitted  into  the  visible  church, 
and  enter  into  an  open  and  professed  engagement  to  be 
wholly  and  only  the  Lord's/'  And  the  proof-text  cited 
for  this  point  is  1  Cor.  xii.  13  :  "  For  by  one  Spirit  are 
we  all  baptized  into  one  body,  whether  we  be  Jews  or 
Gentiles,  whether  we  be  bond  or  free ;  and  have  all  been 
made  to  drink  into  one  Spirit." 

This  is  in  perfect  accordance  with  the  analogy  of  faith, 
the  reason  and  fitness  of  things,  the  current  language  of 
Inspiration,  and  the  teaching  of  the  great  body  of  the 
church  in  every  age.  Nearly  all,  ancients  and  moderns, 
speak  of  baptism — to  use  the  phrase  of  St.  Augustin — as 
janva  ecclesice,  "  the  door  of  the  church" — the  ordinance 
by  which  we  are  introduced  to  the  communion  of  saints. 

So  far  as  our  children  are  concerned,  it  is  of  incalculable 
importance,  as  it  is  a  formal  and  solemn  recognition  of 
their  claims  upon  the  care  and  oversight  of  the  church. 
It  is  the  initiative  of  a  course  of  ecclesiastical  training 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 


169 


and  discipline  by  which  they  are  to  be  prepared,  with  the 
blessing  and  grace  of  God,  for  all  the  duties  and  responsi- 
bilities of  the  Christian  life.  It  is  not  to  be  looked  upon 
as  an  isolated  act,  but  as  the  commencement  of  a  religious 
career — a  covenant  transaction  to  be  constantly  reverted  to 
in  every  stage  of  their  progress,  as  it  never  loses  its  mean- 
ing, virtue,  and  use,  as  a  sign,  and  seal,  and  means  of  grace. 

It  is  no  part  of  our  present  duty  to  enlarge  upon  the 
religious  training  to  which  the  children  of  the  church 
should  be  subjected.  It  is  obvious  that  a  large  portion 
of  it  devolves  upon  their  domestic  guardians,  who  are 
accordingly  to  be  held  accountable  in  the  premises,  The 
neglect  of  parental  duty  is  a  matter  which  comes  legiti- 
mately under  the  disciplinary  jurisdiction  of  the  church. 
Surely  none  can  be  acceptable  members  of  the  church 
who  do  not  endeavor  to  bring  up  their  children  in  the 
nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord. 

But  in  addition  to  the  discipline  thus  brought  to  bear 
upon  baptized  children,  there  is  a  more  direct  ecclesiasti- 
cal oversight  to  which  they  are  entitled.  The  church  is 
bound  to  give  all  diligence  to  instruct  them  in  the  prin- 
ciples of  religion,  so  that  they  may  comprehend  their  bap- 
tismal obligations  and  be  induced  to  discharge  the  same. 
In  primitive  times  this  was  done  in  catechumenical  schools, 
which  are  coeval  with  Christianity.  Sunday  Schools,  duly 
recognized  by  the  church  and  faithfully  supervised  by  its 
pastors,  are  admirably  adapted  to  answer  this  good  end. 

The  judicious  observations  of  Dr.  D wight  on  this  sub- 
ject are  worthy  of  special  note.  He  says,  Sermons  clvii. 
and  clxii.: — 

"  That  infants  should  be  baptized  and  then  be  left  by 
ministers  and  churches  in  a  situation  undistinguishable 
from  that  of  other  children,  appears  to  me  irreconcilable 
with  any  scriptural  views  of  the  nature  and  importance 
of  this  sacrament/' 

"  Ministers  ought  in  my  view,  to  make  it  a  business  of 
their  ministerial  office  distinctly  to  unfold  to  them  the 
nature  of  their  relation  to  God  and  his  church,  and 
solemnly  to  enforce  on  them  the  duties  arising  from  this 
8 


170 


USE  OF  BAPTISM. 


relation — particularly  the  duties  of  repentance  and  faith 
in  the  Redeemer,  of  giving  themselves  up  to  God  in  his 
covenant,  and  taking  upon  themselves  openly  the  charac- 
ter of  Christians.  This,  I  apprehend,  should  be  done  not 
only  from  the  desk,  [pulpit,]  but  in  a  regular  course  of 
laborious  catechetical  instruction.  The  same  things  should 
be  explicitly  and  solemnly  enjoined  from  time  to  time 
upon  their  parents :  one  of  whose  first  duties  it  is,  in  my 
apprehension,  to  co-operate  faithfully  with  their  ministers 
in  teaching  and  enjoining  these  things  upon  their  children. 
Were  these  things  begun  as  soon  as  the  children  were 
capable  of  understanding  them,  and  pursued  through 
every  succeeding  period  of  their  nonage,  a  fair  prospect, 
as  it  seems  to  me,  would  be  opened  for  the  vigorous 
growth  and  abundant  fruitfulness  of  this  nursery  of  the 
church. 

"  Should  baptized  persons,  with  these  advantages,  con- 
duct themselves  frowardly  in  a  course  of  open,  obstinate 
iniquity,  after  they  have  come  to  years  of  discretion,  the 
church  may,  with  the  strictest  propriety,  shut  them  out 
from  these  privileges,  until  by  a  penitent  and  becoming 
deportment,  they  shall  manifest  their  contrition  for  their 
guilty  conduct — not  however  without  previous  and  ample 
admonition. 

"  I  will  further  suggest,  that,  in  my  own  view,  it  is  a 
part  of  the  duty  of  each  church,  at  their  meetings  for 
evangelical  conversation  and  prayer,  to  summon  the  bap- 
tized persons,  who  are  minors,  to  be  present  at  convenient 
seasons,  while  the  church  offers  up  prayer  to  God  pecu- 
liarly for  them ;  and  to  pray  for  them  particularly  at  other 
meetings  holden  for  these  purposes.  Were  all  these 
things  regularly  and  faithfully  done,  (and  they  all  seem 
to  grow  out  of  the  circumstances  of  persons  baptized  in 
their  infancy,)  I  cannot  help  believing,  that  a  new  face 
would,  in  a  great  measure,  be  put  upon  the  condition  and 
character  of  the  persons  in  question.  It  must  be  acknow- 
ledged, that  much  less  attention  is  paid  to  them  in  modern, 
than  in  ancient  times — at  least  by  churches  in  general — 
*md  less,  I  think,  by  ourselves  than  by  our  ancestors." 


CONCLUSION. 


171 


Happy  they  who  use  the  ordinances  of  God  without 
abusing  them — not  yielding  them  a  superstitious  reverence 
or  trusting  in  them,  as  if  they  took  rank  with  the  mercy 
of  the  Father,  the  merit  of  the  Son,  and  the  grace  of  the 
Holy  Ghost;  and  yet  not  undervaluing  them,  as  if  they 
were  mere  ceremonies,  circumstantial  appendages  to 
Christianity,  which  might  be  regarded  without  much  ad- 
vantage, or  neglected  without  much  loss. 


SECTION  IV. — CONCLUSION. 

How  deeply  is  it  to  be  deplored,  that  a  subject  fraught 
with  so  much  instruction  and  importance,  and  withal  so 
plainly  set  forth  in  the  Scriptures,  should  have  been 
made  the  occasion  of  so  much  wrangling  and  contention 
in  the  church  of  Christ.  In  many  instances,  we  fear,  the 
practical  lessons,  which  may  be  learned  from  this  ordi- 
nance, have  been  lost  sight  of  amid  the  fiery  earnestness 
and  avidity  manifested  in  efforts  to  exclude  children  from 
its  privileges,  or  to  substantiate  their  claims — to  show 
that  it  cannot  be  administered  except  by  applying  the 
subject  to  the  element,  or  that  it  may  be  better  admin- 
istered by  applying  the  element  to  the  subject — to  prove 
that  baptism  is  regeneration,  or  at  least  the  only  means 
of  effecting  it,  or  to  disprove  the  absurd  and  unscriptural 
dogma. 

Why  may  not  men  speak  what  they  consider  the  truth, 
in  love,  on  this  subject,  as  well  as  on  others  ?  Why  does 
the  bare  mention  of  a  discussion  of  baptism  suggest  ideas 
of  sectarian  bigotry,  uncharitableness,  sophistry,  and  arro- 
gant dogmatism  ?  Why  will  not  men  lay  aside  their  pre- 
judices, and  keep  their  passions  in  abeyance,  and  enter 
calmly  and  candidly  into  an  investigation  of  the  subject 
in  the  light  of  Holy  Writ?  Why  are  they  more  intent 
on  establishing  their  preconceived  opinions  than  sincerely 
inquiring  into  the  mind  of  the  Spirit  ?  Why  are  they  so 
frequently  zealous  in  defending  what,  upon  patient  inves- 
tigation, they  really  believe  to  be  the  truth,  while  they 


172 


USE  OF  BAPTISM. 


manifest  no  particular  desire  to  ascertain  the  practical 
bearings  of  the  truth  when  thus  discovered  ? 

We  have  long  been  of  the  opinion  that  were  the  spi- 
ritual import  and  moral  ends  of  baptism  more  carefully 
studied,  and  studied  with  practical  intent,  and  not  from 
the  lust  of  controversy  by  which  so  many  "  defenders  of 
the  faith"  are  infected — were  this  done  by  all  who  profess 
and  call  themselves  Christians,  in  a  mild  and  docile  spirit, 
the  church  would  soon  be  of  "  one  mind  and  one  mouth/' 
"  of  one  heart  and  one  soul."  Then,  instead  of  angry 
contentions  and  schismatical  divisions,  we  should  exhibit 
to  the  world  the  sublime  spectacle  of  a  united,  catholic 
communion,  after  the  apostolic  model :  "  There  is  one 
body,  and  one  spirit,  even  as  ye  are  called  iu  one  hope  of 
your  calling:  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism,  one  God 
and  Father  of  all,  who  is  above  all,  and  through  all,  and 
in  you  all."  Eph.  iv.  ^ 

Were  we  aware  that  there  is  a  single  line  in  the  fore- 
going pages,  contrary  to  the  tone  and  temper  of  this 
beautiful  passage,  we  would  show  it  no  quarter.  Truth 
and  charity  are  twin  sisters,  and  should  be  constant  com- 
panions— when  found  apart  we  scarcely  know  the  one  or 
the  other.  Certain  it  is,  we  cannot  "  grow  up  into  Him 
in  all  things,  which  is  the  Head,  even  Christ,"  if  we  are 
unmindful  of  "  speaking  the  truth  in  love." 


APPENDIX. 


APPENDIX. 


STRICTURES  ON  DR.  HOWELL'S  EVILS  OF 
INFANT  BAPTISM. 

The  evils  of  infant  baptism,  constitute  an  antipedobaptist 
argument,  which,  according  to  Dr.  Howell,  has  never  before 
been  brought  into  the  controversy.  He  says,  it  is  * '  an  aspect 
which  has  never  yet  been  considered." 

This  is  very  remarkable.  What  have  those  been  about 
who  consider  themselves  specially  set  for  the  defence  of 
gospel  ordinances?  Have  they  but  just  found  out  what  an 
abominable  thing  is  this  same  baby-sprinkling?  Or,  have 
they  known  all  about  it,  but,  from  motives  of  false  charity, 
refrained  from  the  utterance  of  their  denunciations?  We 
can  hardly  determine  which  of  these  two  suggestions  will 
better  account  for  the  earnestness  with  which  they  have  set 
about  to  demolish  this  abomination  of  desolation,  since  cir- 
cumstances have  induced  them  to  throw  off  the  restraints  of 
pseudo-liberality.  Truly,  they  are  making  a  clean  breast  of 
it  now. 

The  Western  Recorder,  a  Baptist  newspaper,  published  in 
Louisville,  Ky.,  says: — "Of  all  the  'damnable  heresies'  in 
that  black  catalogue  which  has  befouled  Christianity,  we 
consider  infant  baptism  the  most  damnable.  If  other  here- 
sies have  damned  their  thousands,  this  has  damned  its  tens 
of  thousands/' 

A  similar  catholic  spirit  is  breathed  forth  in  the  somewhat 
notorious  letter  of  Dr.  Maclay  to  Dr.  Aydelotte,  a  clergyman 
in  Cincinnati,  on  the  occasion  of  the  withdrawal  of  the  latter 

175 


176 


STRICTURES  ON 


from  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  on.  account  of  the 
doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration  and  other  unscriptural 
opinions  charged  upon  that  communion.  Dr.  Maclay  says 
in  his  letter:  "I  consider  infant  baptism  the  greatest  curso 
that  has  ever  afflicted  Christendom.  It  has  done  more  to 
corrupt  the  church  of  God,  and  make  it  a  den  of  robbers, 
than  all  the  other  inventions  of  the  wicked  one.  This 
accursed  thing  has  rendered  the  churches  of  the  Reformation 
nearly  as  corrupt  as  the  Romish  church  itself." 

This  is  candor  with  a  vengeance.  And  what  is  thus  pre- 
sented in  the  gross,  is  given  in  detail  by  Dr.  Howell,  who 
says  he  writes  "for  the  million,"  and  like  some  others  of  his 
class  finds  it  expedient  to  waive  certain  trifling  scruples  that 
truth  and  charity  might  interpose.  He  gives  us  a  whole 
book  on  the  subject — a  book  bearing  the  respectable  impri- 
matur of  the  Southern  Baptist  Publication  Society — a  book 
which  we  have  read  since  writing  the  most  of  the  foregoing 
pages. 

In  this  modest  and  temperate  publication,  we  have  one 
and  twenty  enormous  evils  laid  to  the  account  of  infant 
baptism ;  and  as  it  would  be  perfectly  easy  to  extend  the  list 
to  one  hundred  and  twenty,  we  wonder  that  the  inventive 
faculty  of  the  author  was  so  soon  exhausted. 

Why  did  he  not  furnish  us  with  proof  that  the  predicted 
antichrist  is  infant  baptism — that  the  sin  unto  death,  for 
which  we  are  not  commanded  to  pray,  is  infant  baptism — 
that  the  blasphemy  against  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  hath 
never  forgiveness,  is  infant  baptism — that  original  sin  itself, 
Which  brought  death  into  the  world  and  all  our  wo,  was 
nothing  under  the  sun  but  infant  baptism,  the  serpent 
having  seduced  Eve  to  consent  to  baptize  her  first-born  child! 
In  short,  why  did  he  not  furnish  proof  that  all  the  sins 
that  ever  were  or  ever  will  be,  must  be  traced  to  this  same 
prolific  evil,  this  mother  of  abominations,  infant  baptism  ? 

But,  seriously,  there  is  no  more  connection  between  the 
evils  adduced  and  the  cause  alleged  by  Dr.  Howell  than  there 
is  between  Tenterden  steeple  and  Goodwin  sands.  In  refer- 
ence to  many  of  these  points,  we  have  furnished  overwhelm- 
ing refutation  in  the  proofs  presented  of  the  Divine  origin  of 
infant  baptism. 


dr.  howell's  evils  of  infant  baptism  177 


Dr.  Howell  says :  "Infant  baptism  is  an  evil  because  its 
practice  is  unsupported  by  the  word  of  God." 

But  he  wisely  ignores  the  principal  testimony  by  which 
the  claims  of  infants  to  this  ordinance  are  sustained.  Ho 
declaims  upon  the  all-sufficiency  of  Scripture  as  a  rule  of 
faith  and  practice — a  point  which  we  are  as  ready  as  he  to 
admit,  and  not  by  any  means  as  apt  to  forget.  He  brings 
forward  some  unguarded  expressions  of  certain  pedobaptist3 
in  reference  to  the  alleged  absence  of  positive  precept  in  the 
premises,  and  also  their  various  speculations  in  regard  to 
the  philosophy  of  the  ordinance,  in  proof  that  it  is  unsup- 
ported by  the  word  of  God!  And  this  is  argument!  This 
is  to  overthrow  the  massy  bulwarks  by  which  infant  baptism 
is  defended! 

But  it  seems  this  "defence  leads  to  the  most  injurious  per 
versions  of  the  word  of  God." 

This  is  an  absurd  charge.  It  involves  a  begging  of  the 
question.  Of  course,  our  construction  of  the  word  of  God 
will  be  considered  perversion  by  those  who  are  determined 
that  infants  shall  not  be  baptized.  But  we  must  beg  leave 
to  inform  Dr.  Howell,  that  the  most  able,  most  judicious, 
most  conscientious  critics  that  ever  attempted  to  expound 
the  word  of  God,  have  not  been  able  to  make  sense  out  of 
the  proof-texts  in  question  without  involving  the  baptism  of 
infants.  And  we  would  be  perfectly  willing  to  leave  it  to 
any  judge  of  language,  to  any  one  capable  of  investigating 
a  question  in  exegesis,  who  had  never  heard  of  the  contro- 
versy on  this  subject,  if  such  could  be  found,  to  determine 
on  which  side  lies  the  sin  of  perverting  the  word  of  God. 
We  could  very  readily  retort  this  charge,  but  this  is  not  to 
our  taste.  We  are  more  inclined  to  refer  to  the  use  we  have 
made  of  those  passages  than  to  deal  out  denunciations  on 
those  who  have  unhappily  mistaken  their  import.  The 
futile  attempt  of  Dr.  Howell  to  extort  a  different  meaning 
from  some  of  them,  more  fully  attaches  us  to  the  construc- 
tion given  them  by  nearly  all  the  learned  and  pious  divines 
that  have  ever  lived  since  the  days  of  the  Apostles. 

The  charge  that  "  infant  baptism  is  an  evil  because  it  en- 
grafts Judaism  upon  the  gospel  of  Christ,"  is  made  with  so 
much  recklessness  that  it  is  very  disagreeable  to  advert  to  it. 
8* 


178 


STRICTURES  OX 


In  our  argument  for  the  baptism  of  children,  drawn  from 
the  analogy  of  circumcision,  we  expressly  state  that  the  re- 
ference is  to  circumcision,  not  as  it  was  a  part  of  the  Jewish 
system,  the  ceremonial  economy  of  Moses,  but  as  it  was  the 
seal  of  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham  four  hundred  years 
before  Judaism  had  a  being.  If  the  Mosaic  dispensation  had 
never  been  originated,  circumcision  would  have  been  prac- 
tised as  a  seal  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  which  the  Apostle 
tells  us  is  the  very  same  which  has  received  its  development 
in  these  latter  times.  That  the  privileges  of  that  covenant 
inured  to  believers  under  the  Mosaic  dispensation,  and  that 
circumcision,  which  subserved  other  purposes  to  the  Jews, 
sealed  to  them  also  the  spiritual  blessings  embraced  in  the 
covenant  with  Abraham,  everybody  knows ;  and  everybody 
ought  to  know  that  the  analogy  between  circumcision  and 
baptism,  alluded  to  by  the  apostle,  embraces  those  points 
alone  which  appertain  to  the  Abrahamic  covenant — it  distinctly 
and  in  so  many  words  excludes  every  thing  national,  tem- 
poral, ceremonial,  every  thing  peculiar  to  the  Jewish  system. 
Gen.  xvii.  ;  Horn.  iv. ;  Gal.  iii.  And  yet  Dr.  Howell  boldly 
affirms  that  infant  baptism  engrafts  Judaism  upon  the  gospel 
of  Christ !  This  is  one  of  the  most  gratuitous,  unfounded, 
unscrupulous  charges  we  have  ever  seen. 

What  effrontery  to  say,  that  "Judaism  has,  with  all  the 
sects,  more  influence  in  their  ecclesiastical  polity,  and  their 
administration  of  ordinances,  than  has  even  the  gospel  itself 
of  the  grace  of  God."  Yerily,  this  is  writing  "for  the 
million!"  The  entire  chapter  on  this  subject  is  a  heteroge- 
neous mass  of  palpable  error  and  bold  assumption. 

It  is  almost  incredible  that  Dr.  Howell  should  not  know 
that  the  Abrahamic  covenant  differs  from  that  which  God 
made  with  the  Israelites  when  he  took  them  by  the  hand  to 
lead  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  and  agrees  in  all  essen- 
tial points  with  that  which  now  obtains,  as  these  particulars 
are  so  fully  and  so  clearly  set  forth  by  St.  Paul  in  his  Epistles 
to  the  Galatians  and  Hebrews.  But  no  wonder  that  Paul  is 
set  aside  when  Christ  is  contradicted.  Dr.  Howell  says  that 
"Christ,  asserts  distinctly  that  circumcision  belonged  to  the 
law  of  Moses,  and  was  identified  with  the  covenant  of  Sinai. 
To  the  Jews  the  Saviour  said,  Moses  gave  you  circumcision. 


br.  howell's  evils  of  infant  baptism.  179 


And  again :  A  man  on  the  Sabbath  day  received  circumcision 
that  the  law  of  Moses  be  not  broken.  Did  Moses  give  them 
circumcision?  Then  circumcision  was  a  part  of  his  cere- 
monial law."  This  is  writing  "  for  the  million,"  with  a  wit 
ness !  Any  one  else  would  readily  detect  the  sophism,  the 
sappressio  veri,  of  this  argument. 

Dr.  Howell  labors  to  prove  that  circumcision  was  a  Jewish 
rite  in  such  a  sense  as  that  baptism,  if  it  comes  in  its  place, 
must  be  also  a  Jewish  rite,  binding  all  who  receive  it  to  keep 
the  ceremonial  law !  But  in  doing  this  he  has  to  contradict 
the  Saviour,  in  garbling  his  language,  omitting  the  qualify- 
ing adjunct  in  which  our  Lord  says  of  circumcision — "not 
because  it  is  of  Moses,  but  of  the  fathers."  John  vii.  22.  As 
it  is j/f  the  fathers — as  it  sealed  the  covenant  made  with  Abra- 
ham, which  Dr.  Howell  erroneously  and  ambiguously  says 
"  was  not  visibly  administered  until  after  the  law,  or  old 
covenant,  had  passed  away,"  but  which,  on  the  contrary,  took 
effect  as  really,  though  not  as  fully,  in  patriarchal  as  in 
Christian  times — as  it  sealed  the  covenant  with  Abraham, 
and  not  as  it  had  respect  afterward  to  the  political  and  cere- 
monial laws  of  the  Jews,  is  it  represented  by  baptism. 

We  are  exceedingly  unwilling  to  charge  any  respectable 
author  with  an  intention  to  deceive ;  but  the  reference  which 
Dr.  Howell  makes  to  sacrifices  as  existing,  together  with  cir- 
cumcision, before  Moses,  forces  us  to  believe  that  he  at  least 
doubted  the  soundness  of  his  position.  The  reason  we  do 
not  offer  sacrifices  need  not  be  assigned.  Why  does  not  Dr. 
Howell  charge  us  with  engrafting  Judaism  on  Christianity 
in  observing  the  Sabbath  ?  If  it  be  said,  it  was  observed  be- 
fore Moses,  we  admit  it ;  yet  it  is  affirmed  expressly  that  the 
Sabbath  was  given  to  the  Israelites  to  be  a  sign  between 
them  and  God.  And  the  change  in  regard  to  the  day  of  rest 
is  not  so  great  as  the  change  in  the  form  of  the  seal  of  the 
covenant  from  circumcision  to  baptism,  and  therefore  it 
savors  more  of  the  Judaical  spirit — while  the  obligation  to 
observe  the  Lord's  day,  as  a  Sabbatical  rest,  essentially  iden- 
tical with  the  primitive  Sabbath,  is  not  so  plainly  set  forth 
as  the  obligation  to  apply  baptism  as  a  seal  to  the  covenant 
in  place  of  circumcision,  which  was  its  external  ratification 
m  patriarchal  times*    And  yet  * '  infant  baptism  engrafts 


180 


STRICTURES  ON 


Judaism  upon  Christianity!"  Will  "the  million"  be  con* 
vinced  with  such  reasoning? 

But  we  are  told  that  "infant  baptism  is  an  evil  because 
the  principles  upon  which  it  is  predicated  contradict  the 
great  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith" — and  "because  it  is 
in  direct  conflict  with  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  re- 
generation." 

If  this  were  so,  it  would  indeed  be  an  evil.  But  it  is  not  so. 
Infant  baptism,  we  admit,  has  been  so  perverted  and  abused  as 
to  be  forced  into  apparent  opposition  to  those  great  doctrines 
of  Christianity.  But  so  has  also  adult  baptism,  especially  as 
administered  by  immersionists,  whether  Mormons  or  Camp- 
bellites,  so-called.  Dr.  Howell  claims  as  "Baptists"  all  the 
followers  of  the  Bethany  apostle,  who  recognize  no  other 
regeneration  than  that  of  water,  and  set  aside  justification 
by  faith,  as  incompatible  with  their  theory  of  "believers, 
baptism."  And  yet  he  has  the  courage  to  charge  these 
errors  on  infant  baptism !  Why  does  he  not  show  up  the 
evils  of  justification  by  faith,  because  multitudes  of  errorists, 
including  thousands  of  his  antipedobaptist  brethren,  engraft 
upon  it  all  the  abominations  of  antinomian  licentiousness  ? 
Why  does  he  not  set  aside  the  necessity  of  personal  holiness, 
because  it  gives  occasion  to  the  development  of  a  self-righteous 
spirit  ? 

There  is  no  logical  connection  between  infant  baptism  and 
those  unevangelical  principles ;  for  heterodox  as  may  be  the 
citations  of  Dr.  Howell  from  Popish  and  Protestant  writers, 
they  can  be  paralleled  by  "  choice  extracts"  from  antipedo- 
baptist writers,  who,  according  to  Dr.  Howell,  are  neither 
Papists  nor  Protestants.  And,  on  the  other  hand,  the  most 
enlightened  and  most  able  defenders  of  justification  by  faith 
and  the  cognate  doctrine  of  regeneration  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
whether  among  the  fathers,  reformers,  or  modern  divines, 
have  been  determined  advocates  of  infant  baptism,  which 
this  modest  writer  styles  "  the  rankest  corruption,  the  main 
support  of  Popery,  ignorance,  and  worldly  conformity." 

He  endeavors  to  bring  the  odium  of  unevangelical  prin- 
ciples upon  all  "the  sects."     The  case  of  the  Methodists, 
t    however,  gives  him  some  difficulty.    In  one  place  he  admits 
that  they  are  highly  evangelical — that  justification  by  faith 


DR.  HO  "WELLES  EVILS  OP  INFANT  BAPTISM.  181 


and  infant  baptism  exist  together  in  their  communion.  But 
then,  "  the  Methodist  churches  have  not  yet  existed  long 
enough,  nor  been  sufficiently  at  ease,  to  feel  fully  the  evils 
of  infant  baptism  !  And  yet  how  large  the  number  of  their 
ministers  and  laymen  who  annually  pass  over  to  Episcopacy, 
and  some  of  them  go  on  to  Puseyism  and  to  Rome  V 

What  logic!  Have  no  antipedobaptists  gone  to  Episco- 
pacy, to  Puseyism,  to  Popery  ?  A  few  Methodists  have  gone 
"to  Episcopacy,"  as  Dr.  Howell  words  it,  on  the  ground  of 
dissatisfaction  with  the  meagre  support  of  the  ministry — the 
itinerancy,  or  the  Presbyterial  ordination  of  the  Methodist 
churches;  but  we  presume  he  would  find  it  difficult  to 
adduce  a  single  example  of  one  who  has  made  the  change 
from  the  motive  he  insinuates ;  and  a  Papist  who  was  edu- 
cated a  Methodist  would  be  indeed  a  rara  avis,  if  he  could 
be  found.  AVe  are  very  sure  that  a  thorough  training  in 
Methodism  affords  one  of  the  best  safeguards  against  the 
Popish  error  of  baptismal  regeneration,  into  a  modification 
of  which,  perhaps,  a  third  part  of  the  antipedobaptists  of 
this  country  have  fallen.  The  attempt  of  Dr.  Howell  to 
fasten  the  odium  of  this  error  upon  the  Methodist  Church  is 
equally  disingenuous  and  absurd.  He  quotes  '-the  Methodist 
Articles  of  Religion/7  as  teaching — "  Baptism  is  not  only  a 
sign  of  profession,  and  mark  of  difference,  whereby  Chris- 
tians are  distinguished  from  others  that  are  not  baptized, 
but  it  is  also  a  sign  of  regeneration,  or  the  new  birth.  The 
baptism  of  young  children  is  in  any  wise  to  be  retained  in 
the  church."  That  is  precisely  what  we  do  teach,  and  every 
word  of  it  is  true.  Baptism  is  a  sign  of  regeneration,  and 
therefore  it  is  not  regeneration.  And  yet  Dr.  Howell  sophis- 
tically  associates  the  Methodist  Confession  with  other  Pro- 
testant Confessions,  and  says:  " Episcopalians  and  Methodists 
affirm  that  by  baptism,  the  new  birth,  the  forgiveness  of  sins, 
adoption,  are  all,  to  the  child,  visibly  signed  and  sealed.  The 
child  therefore  in  baptism,  is  pardoned  of  sin,  is  regenerated, 
is  adopted,  is  received  into  the  church,  received  into  the- 
favour  of  God,  and  saved  in  heaven.  All  this  certainly 
involves  justification,  or  the  declaring  the  person  innocent  oi 
crime.  These  same  Confessions  teach  therefore,  the  justifi 
cation  of  the  sinner  by  baptism.    Consequently  on  the  doo 


182 


STRICTURES  ON 


ferine  of  justification  by  faith,  and  the  doctrines  upon  which 
they  rest  infant  baptism,  the  Confessions,  each  and  all  of 
them,  plainly,  palpably,  unmistakably  contradict  them* 
selves." 

"Was  there  ever  a  more  unblushing  misrepresentation?  If 
so,  it  is  found  in  this  same  volume,  where  this  truthful 
and  reliable  author  has  the  conscience  to  say  of  baptized 
children:  "If  they  are  Methodists  their  catechisms  teach 
them  that  their  baptism  cleansed  them  from  the  defilements 
of  original  sin  !;; 

We  are,  perhaps,  as  well  acquainted  with  the  catechetical 
literature  of  the  Methodist  Churches  as  this  reverend  accuser 
of  our  brethren,  and  yet  we  have  not  found  in  it  a  syllable 
which  even  seems  to  favor  the  error  in  question ;  but  it  con- 
tains that  which  sets  it  aside  in  the  plainest  and  most 
explicit  terms.  Thus  in  the  Catechism  of  Bishop  Capers, 
published  by  the  Methodist  Church  for  the  use  of  the 
Methodist  Missions,  and  constantly  taught  to  thousands  of 
children,  especially  black  children  on  the  plantations,  we 
have  the  following : — 

What  is  baptism  ? 

Baptism  is  a  sign  of  the  grace  of  God  that  makes  us  Christians. 
Does  baptism  make  us  Christians? 

No:  water  cannot  make  us  Christians:  grace  makes  us  Chris- 
tians. 

Who  works  that  grace  in  us  to  make  us  Christians  ? 
The  Holy  Ghost. 

What  do  you  promise  when  you  come  to  be  baptized  ? 
I  promise  to  renounce  the  devil,  and  the  world  and  the  flesh,  so  that 
I  will  not  live  in  sin  any  longer. 
What  other  promise  do  you  make  ? 
I  promise  to  keep  God's  holy  will  and  commandments. 
How  can  you  keep  these  promises  ? 
I  can  keep  them  only  by  God's  grace. 
Ought  little  children  to  be  baptized? 
Yes  :  they  belong  to  Christ. 

And  in  the  Catechism  compiled  by  the  learned  and 
lamented  Richard  Watson,  by  order  of  the  British  Con- 


DR  HOWELL'S  EVILS  OF  INFANT  BAPTISM.  183 


ference,  and  adopted  by  the  entire  American  Connec* 
tion  to  be  used  in  all  our  schools,  we  are  taught  as  fol- 
lows : — 

What  is  the  outward  and  visible  sign  or  form  of  baptism  ? 

The  application  of  water  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son, 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.    Matt,  xxviii.  19. 

What  is  the  inward  and  spiritual  grace  signified  by  this  ? 

Our  being  cleansed  from  sin,  and  becoming  new  creatures  in  Christ 
Jesus , 

Acts  zxii.  16.  Arise  and  be  baptized,  and  wash  away  thy  sins,  call- 
ing on  the  name  of  the  Lord. 

What  are  the  actual  privileges  of  baptized  persons  ? 

They  are  made  members  of  the  visible  church  of  Christ:  their 
gracious  relation  to  him  as  the  second  Adam,  as  the  Mediator  of  the 
new  covenant,  is  solemnly  ratified  by  Divine  appointment;  and  they 
are  thereby  recognized  as  having  a  claim  to  all  those  spiritual  bless- 
ings of  which  they  are  the  proper  subjects. 

What  doth  your  baptism  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and 
the  Holy  Ghost  oblige  you  to  do  ? 

My  baptism  obliges  me,  first,  to  renounce  the  devil  and  all  his  works, 
the  pomps  and  vanity  of  this  wicked  world,  and  all  the  sinful  lusts  of 
the  flesh ;  secondly,  that  I  should  believe  all  the  articles  of  the  Chris- 
tian faith;  and  thirdly,  that  I  should  keep  God's  holy  will  and  com- 
mandments, and  walk  in  the  same  all  the  days  of  my  life. 

And  yet  Dr.  Howell  says  that  the  Methodist  Catechisms' 
teach  the  children  that  their  baptism  cleansed  them  from  the 
defilements  of  original  sin !  It  required  no  common  courage 
to  make  such  a  statement.  We  are  prepared  for  the  per- 
formance of  any  feat  of  controversial  heroism  by  Dr.  Howell 
after  this  exploit.  What  does  he  care  if  the  truth  should 
come  forth  against  him,  like  the  angel  against  Balaam  ? — he 
has  only  to  shut  his  eyes,  and  dash  blindly  forward — such 
is  the  mettle,  or  rather,  the  madness,  of  the  prophet. 

Hear  him  again:  "Infant  Baptism  is  an  evil,  because, 
arrogating  hereditary  claims  to  the  covenant  of  grace,  it  fal- 
sifies the  doctrine  of  universal  depravity/' 

Infant  Baptism  falsifies  the  doctrine  of  universal  de- 


184 


STRICTURES  ON 


pravity !  Admirable  lopdc !  Capital  argument !  Dr.  Howell 
must  be  well  versed  in  ecclesiastical  history.  Will  he  be 
kind  enough  to  inform  us  what  was  the  argumentum  palma 
rium,  the  conclusive  argument  used  by  Augustin,  Jerome, 
and  others,  in  the  fifth  century,  against  Pelagius,  Celestius, 
and  their  associates,  who  denied  "the  doctrine  of  universal 
depravity?" 

The  orthodox  champions  reasoned  thus:  Why  baptize 
children  if  they  are  not  born  in  sin  ?  And  so  we  still  urge : 
Why  administer  to  them  the  ordinance  which  symbolizes  the 
purifying  influences  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  if  they  are  not  pol- 
luted with  the  stain  of  original  and  inherent  depravity  ? 
And  we  will  take  occasion  to  turn  the  tables  and  boldly 
assert,  that  nothing  is  so  well  adapted  to  perpetuate  the 
truth  on  the  subject  of  original  sin  as  the  practice  of  infant 
baptism.  So  long  as  this  is  observed  in  the  Church  we  have 
an  argument  which  we  can  bring  to  bear  with  resistless 
force  upon  Pelagians  of  every  class;  and  we  are  greatly  mis- 
taken if  it  will  not  yet  be. had  in  requisition,  and  if  it  do  not 
yet  perform  good  service,  in  the  restoration  to  orthodoxy  of 
those  churches  that  are  unhappily  chargeable  with  defection 
in  reference  to  this  fundamental  doctrine  of  Christianity, 
As  may  be  supposed,  the  members  of  those  churches  do  not 
lay  much  stress  upon  the  baptism  of  their  children,  and  in 
many  cases  omit  the  duty  altogether,  as  the  exponent  of  a 
great  principle  which  they  have  thought  proper  to  explode. 
But  as  they  have  not  formally  denied  the  right  of  infants  to 
this  ordinance,  a  fulcrum  is  left  on  which  the  lever  of  reason 
can  be  placed  to  lift  them  into  the  orthodox  position  from 
which  they  have  been  removed.  It  is  a  pitiful  sophism  to  say 
that  infant  baptism  arrogates  hereditary  claims  to  the  cove- 
nant of  grace,  and  if  it  were  not  so,  it  would  be  a  non 
sequitur  to  say,  therefore  it  falsifies  the  doctrine  of  universal 
depravity.  Infant  baptism  does  not  arrogate  any  such 
claims. 

Some  of  the  advocates  of  infant  baptism  have  set  forth 
certain  notions  of  their  own  about  the  children  of  believers 
being  born  in  the  covenant  and  therefore  entitled  to  its  seal; 
but  this  is  a  speculation  adventitious  to  the  doctrine  of  infant 
baptism,  though  considered  comparatively  harmless  by  those 


DR.  HOWELl/s  EVILS  OF  INFANT  BAPTISM.  185 


who  do  not  receive  it.  Dr.  Howell  says,  it  "universally 
prevails  among  Presbyterians,  Congregation alists,  and  other 
Calvinists."  Dr.  Howell  does  not  consider  the  antipedobap- 
tists  Calvinists,  or  indeed  Protestants — they  are  the  pure, 
uncorrupted,  unreformed  spouse  of  Christ.  "By  them/'  he 
continues,  namely,  the  Calvinists,  "  it  is  distinctly  avowed ; 
and  it  is  held  with  more  or  less  ambiguity  by  every  class 
of  pedobaptists."  Another  of  his  sweeping,  gratuitous 
assertions. 

Suppose,  however,  this  were  a  fact,  and  suppose  the 
speculation  in  question  were  true,  how  would  it  falsify  the 
doctrine  of  depravity?  Might  not  the  children  of  believers 
be  born  in  sin,  and  yet  be  entitled,  by  virtue  of  their  parent- 
age, to  the  ordinance  which  assumes  the  depravity  of  our 
nature,  and  symbolizes  the  means  by  which  that  depravity  is 
removed?  There  is  not  the  slightest  antagonism  between 
these  points.  And  yet  the  "  optics  keen"  of  Dr.  Howell  has 
discovered  that  infant  baptism  "is  utterly  subversive  of  the 
fundamental  doctrine  of  the  work  of  regeneration  by  the 
Spirit  of  God." 

As  Dr.  Howell  seems  to  care  as  little  for  the  canons  of 
literary  composition  as  for  those  of  ecclesiastical  councils,  he 
has  seen  proper  to  manufacture  arguments  by  a  change  of 
terms  and  a  repetition  of  unfounded  assumptions. 

Thus  his  seventh  argument  makes  "infant  baptism  an  evil 
because  it  of  necessity  entails  corruptions  upon  the  church." 

In  his  eighth,  "it  necessarily  gives  false  views  of  the  king- 
dom of  Christ." 

In  his  ninth,  "it  destroys  the  visibility  of  the  church." 

In  his  tenth,  "it  perpetuates  the  superstitions  that  origi- 
nally produced  it." 

In  his  eleventh,  "it  brings  its  advocates  into  collision  with 
the  authority  of  Christ." 

Of  course,  we  cannot  follow  him  in  all  these  book-making 
repetitions. 

We  have  already  demonstrated  that  none  defer  to  the  au« 
thority  of  Christ  more  fully  than  those  who  baptize  their 
children,  as  they  do  it  on  his  authority. 

"We  have  already  shown  that  infant  baptism  originated  in 
the  wisdom  of  God,  and  not  in  the  superstition  of  man. 


186 


STRICTURES  ON 


We  have  also  proved  that  it  is  essential  to  the  integrity 
and  perfection  of  the  church,  and  therefore  it  is  absurd  to 
say  that  it  militates  with  its  visibility  and  purity. 

It  has,  indeed,  been  encumbered  with  the  corruptions  of 
men,  and  had  it  not  possessed  a  divine  vitality,  it  would 
long  since  have  been  destroyed,  or,  at  least,  its  identity 
would  have  been  lost  amid  the  superstitious  accretions  of  the 
degenerate  ages  of  the  Church.  The  more  therefore  it  has 
been  abused,  the  clearer  does  its  divine  original  appear. 
Dr.  Howell,  does  not  seem  to  be  aware  that  the  truth  may 
be  forced  into  a  temporary  connection  with  error,  and  the 
latter  may  support  itself  on  the  credit  of  the  former.  The 
multitudinous  corruptions  superinduced  upon  infant  baptism 
never  could  have  gained  popularity  within  a  century  of  the 
apostolic  age,  and  maintained  it  for  more  than  a  millennium 
of  darkness,  had  not  the  doctrine  itself  been  impregnably 
true,  and  the  practice  undeniably  scriptural.  There  would 
never  have  been  the  corruption  of  the  Mass,  had  the  Lord's 
Supper  never  been  divinely  appointed. 

Dr.  Howell  seems  to  be  incapable  of  discriminating  be- 
tween the  cause  and  the  occasion  of  corruption.  We  admit 
that  baptism  in  general,  and  infant  baptism  in  particular, 
has  been  the  occasion  of  numerous  evils,  but  we  deny  that  it 
has  been  the  cause  of  any.  Nevertheless,  we  will  listen  to 
Dr.  Howell's  invective.  He  says  with  unparalleled  mo- 
desty:— 

"The  spirit  with  which  infant  baptism  inspires  the  church 
is  corrupt  and  unholy.  This  fact  is  most  obvious.  It  is 
fully  justified  by  the  history  of  Popery  in  all  ages.  The 
progressive  developments  of  Protestantism  increase  its  force. 
Whence  originated  the  Neology  of  Lutheranism,  the  Puseyism 
<)f  Episcopacy,  and  the  Universalism  and  Unitarianism  of 
Presbyterians  and  Congregationalists?  They  are  all  the 
legitimate  fruits  of  infant  baptism,  but  for  which  they  never 
could  have  existed.  Baptist  churches  cannot  be  thus  cor- 
rupted and  destroyed." 

Now,  upon  Dr.  Howell's  principles,  we  can  show  that  all 
this  ado  about  corruption  in  the  church  is  "sound  and  fury, 
signifying  nothing.''  We  can  demonstrate  that  there  is  no 
corruption  in  the  church — there  never  has  been  any — ther* 


dr.  howell's  evils  of  infant  baptism.  187 


never  can  be  any.  Were  not  all  the  apostolic  churches  anti- 
pedobaptist in  their  "  faith  and  order  ?"  Dr.  Howell  says 
they  were.  And  does  he  not  say  that  "  Baptist  churches 
cannot  be  thus  corrupted  and  destroyed  W,  Is  it  not  there- 
fore out  of  the  question  to  talk  about  corruption  in  the 
church?  As  Infant  Baptism  is  the  mother  of  abominations, 
if  the  offspring  cannot  be  tolerated,  certainly  the  parent 
would  receive  no  quarter.  The  corruptions  of  the  church, 
therefore,  are  as  perfectly  fabulous  as  any  of  the  feats  in 
Gulliver's  Travels;  and  ' ' baby-sprinkling/''  the  only  possi- 
ble cause  of  corruption  in  the  church,  has  never  been 
practised  at  all — and  for  this  good  and  sufficient  reason, 
"Baptist  churches" — and  there  were  none  but  Baptist 
churches  in  the  beginning — "cannot  be  thus  corrupted  and 
destroyed." 

But  if,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  we  may  be  allowed  to 
suppose  that  antipedobaptist  churches  are  not  absolutely 
indefectible,  incorruptible,  infallible — suppose  it  possible 
that  they  may  err,  that  they  may  be  corrupted — the  suppo- 
sition will  allow  us  to  inquire,  whether  or  not  they  may 
have  erred — whether  or  not,  in  some  instances,  they  have 
been  chargeable  with  any  slight  defections  from  the  "ancient 
gospel,"  any  variations  from  apostolic  "faith  and  order." 

One  thing  is  obvious,  if  there  be  any  pedobaptist  churches 
in  the  world — if  there  ever  have  been  any,  they  must  have 
originated  in  "  Baptist  churches,"  if  Dr.  Howell  be  correct 
in  affirming  that  in  primitive  times  there  were  no  other.  He 
says  that  pedobaptism  was  unknown  till  the  middle  of  the 
third  century.  But  were  there  no  corruptions  in  the  church 
until  that  time  ?  Was  there  no  Ebionism — a  Judaico-Chris- 
tian  hybrid — in  the  first  century  ?  Was  there  no  Gnosticism 
— a  cross  between  Christianity  and  the  Oriental  philosophy  ? 
And  is  it  possible  to  overstate  the  enormity  of  those  heresies, 
developing  and  patronizing  as  they  did  the  most  shameless 
immoralities?  Were  there  no  Marcionites  in  the  second 
century  ? — no  Encratites,  Carpocratians,  Valentinians,  Patri- 
passians,  Montanists — but  why  enumerate?  why  interrogate? 
The  church — the  incorruptible  church — of  the  first  three  cen* 
turies — the  immaculate  antipedobaptist  period — was  flooded 
with  heresies — damnable  heresies,  and  with  immoralities, 


188 


STRICTURES  ON 


scarcely  exceeded  by  those  of  the  Anabaptists  of  Minister,  or 
their  successors  of  Utah. 

Dr.  Howell  erroneously  affirms  that  infant  baptism  had  not 
been  introduced  in  the  times  of  Tertullian,  whom  he  claims 
as  a  "Baptist"  preacher  of  the  first  water,  being  oarefal  to 
inform  U3  in  a  foot-note  that  he  "  was  not  a  Campbellite." 
Of  course  he  was  incorruptible.  And  you  must  neither  be- 
lieve his  biographers  nor  his  writings,  which  make  him  one 
of  the  rankest  enthusiasts  that  ever  lived.  He  was,  indeed, 
brimful  of  superstition — completely  steeped  in  fanaticism. 
He  went  so  far  as  to  become  a  disciple  of  Montanus,  who 
blasphemeously  gave  himself  out  to  be  the  promised  Com- 
forter !  And  it  was  largely  through  the  instrumentality  of 
the  former  that  so  many  thousands  were  led  away  by  the  im- 
postures of  the  latter. 

Dr.  Howell  says  that  infant  baptism  was  the  parent  of 
unitarianism,  and  that  there  was  no  infant  baptism  in  the 
primitive  church.  How  can  he  help  knowing  that  there  was 
scarcely  a  heretic  from  Simon  Magus  and  Cerinthus  down  to 
Manes  and  Arius — to  descend  no  further — that  did  not  deny 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  ?  These  heretics  were  numerous 
— their  name  was  legion — and  it  was  but  about  two  centuries 
after  the  apostolic  age,  when  unitarianism  had  well-nigh  ex- 
tinguished the  orthodox  faith,  so  that  the  great  champion  of 
the  truth,  is  spoken  of  as  Allianasius  contra  mundum — 
Athanasius  against  the  world.  And  yet  "  Baptist  churches 
cannot  be  corrupted." 

We  indeed  can  defend  "  Baptist  churches"  from  all  im- 
putation of  heresy  in  regard  to  those  primitive  defections 
from  the  truth,  because  there  were  no  "Baptist  churches"  in 
existence  till  a  thousand  years  afterward.  "  Baptist  churches" 
were  as  innocent  of  heresy  for  all  that  time  as  unborn  babes. 
We  are  ashamed  to  say  that  all  those  heretics  as  well  as  the 
orthodox  whom  they  so  much  troubled,  were  pedobaptists, 
albeit  their  infant  baptism  had  nothing  to  do  with  their 
heresies.  Pelagius  the  heretic  and  Augustine  his  opponent 
alike  declared,  that  they  had  never  heard  of  any  one  so  im- 
pious as  to  deny  the  right  of  infants  to  baptism. 

But  history,  somewhat  more  modern,  furnishes  examples 
of  "Baptist  churches"  not  altogether  free  from  heretical 


BR.  HOWELl/S  EVILS  OF  INFANT  BAPTISM.  189 


"  taints  and  blames."  Dr.  Howell  claims,  as  spiritual  ances^ 
tors,  the  anabaptists  of  Germany.  We  may  admit  that  they 
have  been  slandered  by  history,  but,  after  this  admission, 
there  is  a  very  large  margin  left  for  charges  which  truth  will 
not  allow  to  be  set  aside  by  a  mere  arrogant  assertion.  But, 
for  the  present  we  will  pass  over  their  trifling  misdemeanors 
— such  as  their  treachery,  hypocrisy,  licentiousness,  murder, 
blasphemy — and  allude  to  them  merely  for  the  purpose  of 
showing  that  they  were  the  patriarchs  of  modern  unita- 
rianism. 

Servetus,  who  was  put  to  death  at  Geneva,  at  the  ever-to- 
be-deplored  instigation  of  John  Calvin,  suffered  for  forty 
errors — one  of  which  was  a  denial  of  infant  baptism  and 
another  was  a  denial  of  the  Trinity.  And  the  anabaptists 
that  went  from  Germany  to  Poland  gave  birth  to  Socinianism, 
which  bade  fair  at  one  time  to  become  the  established  religion 
of  that  kingdom.  It  took  deeper  root  there  and  in  Transyl- 
vania than  any  other  state  in  Europe,  and  there  it  still  re- 
mains. The  anabaptists  were  "  baptistical"-  to  the  heart's 
content  of  Dr.  Howell,  and  we  see  how  immaculate  and  in- 
fallible they  were.  By  whom  was  the  worst  feature  of  the 
old  Patripassian  heresy  revived  in  modern  times,  but  by  the 
anabaptists  of  Flanders  ?  Because  it  is  said,  "  The  Word 
was  made  flesh,"  they  taught  that  the  divine  nature  of  Christ, 
one  with  the  Father,  was  transubstantiated  into  the  human 
nature ;  as  if  the  infinite,  immaterial,  indivisible,  and  im- 
mortal Godhead,  could  be  changed  and  divided  into  a  finite 
spirit  and  a  material,  mortal  body !  "Absolve  we  this,  what 
then  is  blasphemy  ?"  Yet  "  Baptist  churches  cannot  be  cor- 
rupted." 

Who  was  the  founder  of  "the  denomination"  in  this 
country,  but  the  incessantly  lauded  and  almost  canonized 
anabaptist,  Roger  Williams  ?  Hildreth,  in  his  History  of  the 
United  States,  tells  us  that  this  great  "Baptist"  patriarch, 
and  apostle  of  civil  and  religious  liberty,  and  heroic  confessor 
if  not  martyr  for  the  truth,  embraced  anabaptism  in  1639, 
and  being  first  dipped  by  one  of  the  "brethren,  turned  round 
and  dipped  him  and  others,  and  thus  became  "  the  foundei 
and  teacher  of  the  first  Baptist  Church  in  America.  But," 
continues  Hildreth,  "he  soon  left  it,  became  a  ' seeker/  antf 


190 


STRICTURES  ON 


after  many  doubts  as  to  authority  for  any  ecclesiastical  on 
ganization,  finally  concluded  that  none  was  lawful,  or  at 
least,  necessary.  Though  he  continued  to  employ  the  phrase- 
ology of  the  Puritans,  he  seems  ultimately  to  have  renounced 
all  formalities  of  worship,  having  adopted  the  opinion  that 
Christianity  was  but  another  name  for  humanity."  And  yet 
"  Baptist  churches  cannot  be  corrupted." 

We  would  like  to  ask  what  was  the  cradle  of  American 
Universalism ?  A  "Baptist  Church"  in  Philadelphia.  And 
who  was  the  father  of  the  heresy  ?  The  Rev.  Elnathan  Win- 
chester, a  "  Baptist"  clergyman  of  distinguished  ability. 
After  spreading  the  leaven  of  his  pernicious  doctrine  among 
the  brethren  of  his  "faith  and  order"  in  America,  he  went 
to  Great  Britain  and  there  circulated  his  unscriptural  princi- 
ples. And  the  gieatest  resistance  he  ever  received  was  from 
the  ministers  of  pedobaptist  churches.  And  the  great  cham- 
pion of  New  England  Universalism,  Walter  Balfour,  who 
died  Jan.  3,  1852,  was  an  antipedobaptist  too.  The  first 
step  from  Scotch  Presbyterianism  made  him  a  "Baptist" — 
the  next  a  Universalist — and  crowds  followed  him  in  his 
downward  course.  Yet  "Baptist  churches  cannot  be  cor- 
rupted and  destroyed." 

One  branch  of  "the  denomination"  is  known  by  the  eu- 
phonius  name  of  Turikers  or  Dunkards — sometimes  styled, 
"German  Baptists."  They  are  found  chiefly  in  Pennsyl- 
vania, in  the  western  parts  of  Maryland,  Virginia,  and  in 
Ohio.  They  are  professed  Universalists,  somewhat  upon 
the  Restoration  platform  of  Mr.  Winchester.  They  are 
"strongly  baptistical,"  though  we  think  they  have  some 
peculiarity  in  their  mode  of  plunging  the  believers.  Yet 
"Baptist  churches  cannot  be  corrupted." 

Has  the  writer  "for  the  million"  forgot  who  was  the 
author  of  that  pestilent  heresy,  which  has  spread  like  a 
prairie  fire  in  our  country,  and  especially  in  the  West? 
This  heresy,  or  rather  combination  of  heresies,  involves  the 
detestable  dogma  of  baptismal  regeneration,  so-called — the 
denial  of  the  work  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  in  many  instances 
his  Personality  too — a  denial,  in  numerous  cases,  of  the 
Deity  of  Christ  and  the  doctrine  of  eternal  punishment — and 
the  subversion  of  other  established  points  of  belief.  Was 


DR.  HOWELL'S  EVILS  OF  INFANT  BAPTISM.  191 


not  an  antipedobaptist  minister — a  redoubtable  champion  on 
Dr.  Howell's  side — the  originator  of  this  falsely  called  Primi- 
tive Gospel?  And  did  he  find  it  impossible  to  corrupt  "Bap- 
tist churches?"  What  is  the  history  of  "the  denomination?" 
Dr.  Howell  plumes  himself  on  its  popularity.    He  says: 

"The  Baptist  churches  of  this  country  contain  a  million 
of  communicants.  Five  millions  more  are  of  their  opinion 
and  under  their  influence.  One-fourth  therefore  of  all  the 
population  of  the  United  States  are  strongly  baptistical.  All 
these  regard  infant  baptism  and  infant  membership,  as  a 
nullity,  and  subject  it  to  constant  ridicule." 

The  matter  of  ridicule  we  will  let  pass:  it  is  easier  to 
ridicule  a  thing  than  to  disprove  it.  But  let  us  revert  to  the 
arithmetic.  Of  these  million  communicants  one-third,  less 
or  more,  are  Campbellites,  whom  the  regular  "Baptist 
Churches"  have  denounced  as  heretics,  and  with  whom  they 
have  no  fellowship. 

One  branch  of  "the  denomination,"  wishing  of  course  to 
be  considered  lineal  descendants  of  the  disciples  who  were 
first  called  "Christians"  at  Antioch,  decline  to  be  known  by 
any  other  title.  They  are  "  Christians"  by  eminence.  They 
ieny  indeed  the  divinity  of  Christ — nevertheless  they  are 
"strongly  baptistical,"  and  "Baptist  churches  cannot  be 
corrupted." 

A  large  portion  of  the  "denomination,"  especially  in  the 
South,  is  made  up  of  antinomian,  "Anti-missionary  Bap- 
tists," whose  ignorance  and  immorality  have  been,  and  still 
are,  a  disgrace  to  the  Christian  name.  They  are  not  Dunhards, 
like  their  German  brethren,  but  thousands  of  them  are  no- 
torious drunkards.  And  there  are  times  when  Dr.  Howell 
denounces  them  with  greater  vehemence  than  we  do,  be- 
cause of  his  quasi  connection  with  them.  And  yet  "Baptist 
churches  cannot  be  corrupted  V*  We  fancy  it  would  be  diffi- 
cult to  corrupt  Dr.  Howell's  "hard-shell"  brethren. 

Another  division  of  "the  denomination"  maintain  that 
there  is  no  more  authority  in  Scripture  for  the  observance 
of  the  Lord's  Day,  as  a  Sabbath,  than  there  is  for  the  bap- 
tism of  children.  And  in  saying  this,  they  are  doubtless 
correct,  though  Dr.  Howell  is  very  far  from  thinking  so. 
Yet  "Baptist  churches  cannot  be  corrupted." 


192 


STRICTURES  ON 


Another  Portion  of  "the  denomination"  is  known  by  the 
name  of  "Two-Seed  Baptists" — a  title  equally  beautiful  and 
Scriptural.  These  people  are  perhaps  too  ignorant  to  be 
called  heretics.  If  they  only  knew  it,  they  are,  in  a  very 
stupid  and  awkward  manner,  attempting  to  disinter  the 
putrid  carcass  of  Manicheism — that  impious  compound  of 
oriental  paganism  and  eviscerated  Christianity.  The  Two- 
Seed  brethren  are  "strongly  baptistical."  Yet  "Baptist 
churches  cannot  be  corrupted."  The  great  universal,  ex- 
clusive corrupter  of  Christianity  is  infant  baptism. 

But  our  patience  is  exhausted.  We  are  weary  of  the 
enumeration.  There  seems  to  be  no  end  to  the  various  sects 
of  "  the  denomination" — General,  Particular,  Regular — Two- 
Seed,  Six-Principle,  and  Seventh-day — Close-Communion, 
Open-Communion,  and  No-Communion — Arian,  Trinitarian, 
and  Universalist — Calvinistic,  Antinomian,  and  Free-Will — 
all  "strongly  baptistical" — not  one  of  them  free  from  error, 
and  most  of  them,  as  sects,  infected  with  deadly  heresy— 
and  yet  "Baptist  churches  cannot  be  corrupted." 

We  dare  say  if  Joe  Smith  had  practised  "baby-sprink- 
ling," instead  of  adult  immersion,  all  the  abominations  of 
the  Mormons,  including  their  brazen  effrontery,  their  poly- 
gamy, their  "  treasons,  stratagems,  and  spoils,"  would  have 
been  saddled  upon  infant  baptism.  And  if  the  Manicheans, 
Sabbatarians,  Anti-missionaries,  Christians,  Campbellites, 
Tunkers,  Winchesterians,  had  renounced  "believers'  bap- 
tism," and  taken  to  sprinkling  babies,  Dr.  Howell  would  have 
charged  all  their  paganism,  Judaism,  antinomianism,  unita- 
rianism,  ritualism,  universalism,  and  we  know  not  what, 
upon  that  mammoth  corrupter,  infant  baptism. 

But  we  forget — Dr.  Howell  writes  for  the  million.  Does 
he  mean  the  "  million  of  communicants  in  Baptist  churches?" 
If  so,  they  may  perhaps  appreciate  his  argument.  We  must 
be  allowed,  however,  to  entertain  a  different  opinion  of  the 
"five  millions  more,"  who  he  says  are  "  strongly  baptisticaL" 
In  this  number,  by  the  way,  he  includes  infants,  as  well  as 
adults — a  mode  of  computation  this  which  scarcely  befits  so 
great  a  champion  of  antipedobaptism.  And  yet  his  argu- 
ment is  fit  only  for  children  and  such  other  innocents  as  are 


DR.  HOWELL'S  EVILS  OF  INFANT  BAPTISM.  198 


unable  to  discriminate  "between  sober  reasoning  and  reckless 
assumption. 

The  more  discreet  brethren  of  Dr.  Howell's  "  faith  and 
order/'  we  feel  very  sure,  must  blush  at  his  silly  prating 
about  the  immaculate  and  incorruptible  character  of  antipe- 
dobaptist  churches,  and  his  farcical  assertion  that  pedobap- 
tist  churches  in  America  would  be  as  corrupt  as  those  in 
Germany,  Spain,  and  Italy,  were  it  not  for  certain  causes,  of 
which  the  diffusion  of  ''Baptist  people"  is  the  most  promi* 
nent.  Such  self-laudation,  we  would  think,  would  be  nau- 
seating even  to  the  million  for  whom  it  is  prepared. 

As  to  the  Neology  of  Germany,  the  Puseyism  of  Great 
Britain,  and  the  heterodoxy  of  New  England,  these  corrup- 
tions would  have  existed  if  infant  baptism  had  never  been 
practised,  though  Dr.  Howell  says  they  never  could  have 
existed  without  it.  It  is  not  difficult  to  account  for  the  origin 
of  these  heresies.  We  can  readily  show  how  Socinianism 
originated  in  Geneva  and  Massachusetts.  But  were  we  to  do 
this,  it  might  not  be  complimentary  to  some  of  the  principles 
which  Dr.  Howell  maintains  in  common  with  other  Oalvin- 
ists,  whom  he  carefully  shuns  as  Protestant  sectaries,  not 
worthy  of  being  associated  with  those  who  constitute  the 
one,  holy,  uncorrupted,  and  incorruptible,  communion  of 
saints.  We  can  assure  him  that  the  high  mystery  of  predes- 
tination and  the  high-handed  measures  of  the  stern  old  Puri- 
tans, had  more  to  do  with  the  defection  in  New  England 
than  baptism  of  any  sort.  And  the  same,  mutatis  mutandis, 
may  be  said  in  reference  to  the  defection  at  Geneva  and 
other  places. 

At  the  same  time,  let  it  be  remembered  that  all  those 
heresies  have  met  with  the  severest  handling  from  pedobap- 
tist  divines ;  and  there  are  millions  of  pedobaptists,  in  the 
various  sections  of  the  church,  who  are  constantly  engaged 
in  a  war  upon  those  corruptions  of  Christianity,  and  by  them 
principally  must  they  be  destroyed.  Whatever  aid  and  com- 
fort they  may  receive  from  their  antipedobaptist  brethren  in 
this  great  undertaking,  it  is  a  pleasant  conceit  to  imagine 
that  without  the  influence  of  the  latter  the  former  would 
all  be  overcome  by  the  foe  which  they  are  sworn  to 
destroy  I 
9 


194 


STRICTURES  ON 


Alas!  antipedobaptists  have  more  important  work  on 
their  hands  than  uniting  with  their  pedobaptist  brethren 
*0  put  down  Socianianism  and  kindred  corruptions.  If  Dr 
Howell  be  correct,  they  have  no  ammunition  to  waste  upon 
these  Lilliputian  adversaries,  when  the  giant  foe,  infant  bap- 
tism, is  in  the  field.  Let  this  Goliath  be  slain,  and  the  whole 
army  of  the  Philistines  will  flee  before  them  and  never  gird 
themselves  again  for  the  battle  ! 

Dr.  Howell  says,  ' 'No  child  ever  was,  or  ever  will  be, 
benefited  by  its  baptism  and  church-membership,  but  on  the 
contrary,  it  is  seriously  injured." 

Now  this  is  an  assertion  which,  in  the  nature  of  the  case, 
he  cannot  prove ;  and  therefore  he  can  advance  it  only  as  a 
foregone  conclusion.  But  suppose  pious  men,  like  Philip 
Henry  and  multitudes  besides  him,  assert  to  the  contrary — sup- 
pose they  say  emphatically  that  they  have  been  benefited  by 
their  baptism  in  infancy — suppose  they  thank  God  for  the 
privilege  granted  to  them  of  solemn  baptismal  dedication  to 
God  and  his  church  from  the  womb — who  is  competent  to 
contradict  them  in  this  matter?  who  can  prove  that  they 
have  not  experienced  the  benefit  which  they  profess  to  have 
received,  and  that  they  are  thankful  for  small  favors,  or 
rather  for  no  favors  at  all?  We  know  of  none  but  Dr. 
Howell — who  seems  to  be  equal  to  any  task  which  requires 
an  unusual  amount  of  dogmatic  assurance  and  arrogant 
assumption. 

But  with  his  leave,  or  otherwise  without  it,  we  do  not 
hesitate  to  say  that  we  have  derived  great  benefit  from  our 
baptism  in  infancy,  and  we  are  perhaps  as  capable  of  judg- 
ing in  our  own  case  as  any  pragmatist  is  for  us.  And  we 
furthermore  affirm  it  as  our  settled  belief  that  there  is 
scarcely  any  thing  more  edifying  to  those  who  witness  it 
than  the  baptism  of  children,  when  properly  performed — 
scarcely  any  thing  more  beneficial  to  the  subjects  when  fol- 
lowed up  by  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord,  and 
not  performed  as  an  isolated  service — and  scarcely  any 
thing  more  profitable  to  the  church,  when  succeeded  by  that 
discipline  without  which  no  ordinances,  no  ministrations, 
can  produce  their  designed  effect.  When  those  who  have 
been  baptized  in  infancy  refuse  to  discharge  their  baptismal 


DR.  HOWELL*  S  EVILS  OF  INFANT  BAPTISM.  195 


obligations  after  they  have  arrived  at  years  of  maturity,  they 
are  no  longer  legitimate  members  of  the  church  of  Christ. 
In  this  respect  they  take  rank  with  those  who  fall  away  after 
they  have  received  "believers'  baptism" — for  not  all  im- 
mersed adults  prove  to  be  immaculate  Christians,  whether 
they  are  retained  in  the  fellowship  of  the  church,  or  ex- 
cluded from  it.  Still,  antipedobaptists  are  the  men,  and 
laligion  will  die  with  them.  As  a  proof  of  it,  hear  Dr. 
Howell : 

"We  therefore  wield  the  only  conservative  influence  at 
present  existing  in  the  universe.  We  have  the  power,  with 
the  blessing  of  God,  to  save  from  being  wholly  quenched 
that  truth  which  is  the  world's  only  hope.  How  exalted 
therefore,  how  sublime  is  our  mission !  For  this  purpose, 
doubtless,  our  Heavenly  Father  has  in  all  ages  kept  us  as  his 
true  Church,  an  event  which  seems  almost  as  miraculous  as 
would  be  the  preservation  of  a  spark  amid  the  waters  of  the 
raging  ocean.  Every  hierarchy  and  sect,  Papal  and  Pro- 
testant, has  been  united  for  our  destruction,  and  every  govern- 
ment upon  earth  has  pursued  us  incessantly,  with  fire  and 
sword,  but  we  have  lived  on  through  every  persecution,  and 
have  never  failed,  however  deep  our  suffering,  to  bear  our 
testimony  as  witnesses  for  God.  Our  bonds  are  at  last  being 
loosed :  the  links  of  our  chain  are,  one  by  one,  breaking,  and 
falling :  prosperity  has  come ;  and  our  rapid  spread  over  the 
earth  intimates  that  God  is  about  to  vindicate  his  gospel,  to 
sweep  away  from  among  men  the  clouds  of  ignorance  and 
error,  and  to  restore  to  the  world  a  pure  and  glorious  Chris- 
tianity." 

Oxford  and  Rome — prelate  and  pope — hide  your  diminished 
heads !  Prate  no  more  about  the  church  and  the  uninter- 
rupted apostolical  succession : 

a  The  temple  of  the  Lord  are  we, 
And  heathens  all  beside  !" 

All  hail  the  martyr  Church ! 

The  foregoing  passage  from  Dr.  Howell  shows  that  he  is 
an  erudite  and  sober-minded  archaeologist,  profoundly  versed 
hi  the  history  of  the  church.  Of  this  we  have  additional 
proof.   He  says 


196 


STRICTURES  ON 


"  Superstition  is  the  parent  of  infant  baptism.  Nor  has 
•*ny  of  the  progeny  of  that  most  prolific  mother  been  more 
productive  of  evil  to  the  cause  of  truth  and  salvation.  In 
these  respects  it  has  amply  justified  its  origin.  It  is  not  the 
eldest  born,  but  it  is  the  most  popular  and  insidious  of  them 
all.  It  rapidly  gained  and  yet  continues  to  exercise  an  abso- 
lute sway  over  the  minds  of  men.  During  the  apostolic  age, 
and  until  two  hundred  years  of  the  church  had  been  told, 
infant  baptism  was  wholly  unknown.  The  history  of  that 
period,  whether  sacred  or  profane,  makes  not  the  remotest 
allusion  to  such  a  practice.  This  of  itself  is  sufficient  proof 
that  it  did  not  exist.  But  it  is  not  the  only  testimony.  The 
fathers  of  the  church,  who  then  lived  and  wrote,  often  spoke 
of  baptism,  and  always  in  such  terms  as  to  convince  us  that 
it  was  not  administered  to  children.  One  of  them — Justin- 
contrasts  the  state  of  Christians  at  their  birth  with  their  state 
at  baptism.  '  Then  [at  their  birth,  says  he]  they  were  in- 
voluntary, and  unconscious  of  what  they  experienced ;  but 
at  their  baptism  they  had  choice,  and  knowledge  of  illumina- 
tion/ And  Tertullian  observes :  *  The  laver  of  baptism  is 
the  seal  of  faith,  which  faith  begins  from  penitence.  We  are 
not  washed  [baptized]  in  order  that  we  may  cease  from  sin- 
ning, but  we  have  ceased,  since  we  are  already  cleansed  in 
heart/  Infant  baptism  could  not,  therefore,  have  as  yet 
been  introduced.  Origen,  who  lived  in  the  middle  of  the 
third  century,  was  the  first  who  defended  it." 

The  language  here  cited  from  J ustin  has  reference  to  con- 
verts from  paganism — of  whom  Justin  himself  was  one — -and 
any  pedobaptist  missionary  would  use  the  same  in  reference 
to  his  baptized  converts.  It  is  a  simple  absurdity  to  bring 
that  into  the  discussion.  Do  not  we  practise  "believers' 
baptism"  ? 

But  what  shall  be  said  of  that  which  follows  ?  We  could 
not  believe  that  any  clergyman,  who  had  studied  this  con- 
troversy at  all,  could  affirm  that  infant  baptism  had  not 
been  introduced  in  the  days  of  Tertullian !  The  writer  that 
can  make  this  statement  is  entitled  to  no  confidence.  Does 
not  everybody  know  that  infant  baptism  was  practised  in 
Tertullian's  time,  and  that  this  superstitious  father  set  him- 
self to  work  in  good  earnest  to  induce  the  postponement  of 


DR.  HOWELL' S  EVILS  OF  INFANT  BAPTISM.  197 


baptism  in  the  case  of  infants,  unless  their  lives  were  in 
danger?  This  innovation  upon  the  apostolic  rule  originated 
in  his  notion  that  baptism  washes  away  all  sin,  original  and 
actual,  committed  before  its  reception,  and,  therefore,  the 
longer  it  was  delayed,  provided  it  was  not  prevented  by  death, 
the  better  for  the  subject.    He  says : 

"  According  to  every  one's  condition  and  disposition,  and 
also  their  age,  the  delaying  of  baptism  is  more  profitable, 
especially  in  case  of  little  children.  For  what  need  is  there 
that  the  sponsors  should  be  brought  into  danger?  because 
they  may  either  fail  of  their  promise  by  death,  or  they  may 
be  deceived  by  a  child's  proving  of  wicked  disposition.  Our 
Lord  says,  indeed,  '  Do  not  forbid  them  to  come  unto  me 
therefore  let  them  come  when  they  are  grown  up :  let  them 
come  when  they  understand,  when  they  are  taught  whither 
they  come :  let  them  be  made  Christians  when  they  can  know 
Christ.  "Why  does  their  innocent  age  make  such  haste  to  the 
remission  of  sins?  Quid  festinat  innocens  cetas  ad  remis- 
sionem peccatorum?  Men  will  proceed  very  warily  in  secular 
things  ;  and  he  that  should  not  have  earthly  goods  committed 
to  him,  yet  may  he  have  heavenly.  Let  them  know  how  to 
desire  this  salvation,  that  you  may  appear  to  have  given  to 
one  that  asketh." 

On  similar  grounds,  he  recommends  unmarried  persons, 
and  persons  in  a  widowed  state,  exposed  to  peculiar  tempta- 
tions, and  those  also  who  are  engaged  in  business  concerns, 
to  postpone  their  baptism.  He  was,  thus,  not  only  opposed 
to  infant  baptism,  but  also  to  "believers'  baptism" — super- 
stitiously  arguing  that  "those  who  understand  the  import  of 
baptism,  will  rather  dread  the  receiving  of  it  than  the  delay- 
ing of  it." 

Yet  Tertullian  would  not  on  any  account  have  suffered 
either  adult  or  child  to  leave  the  world  without  baptism. 
Rather  than  not  have  the  rite  administered,  in  cases  of 
emergency  he  sanctioned  its  administration  by  laymen. 
Contemptible  as  his  reasoning  for  postponement  may  appear 
to  us,  it  was  not  without  effect  in  the  third  and  fourth  cen- 
turies. 

But  had  Tertullian  been  opposed  to  infant  baptism  per 
he  could  have  vritten  it  down  in  a  far  more  effectual  wayt 


198 


STRICTURES  ON 


by  simply  urging  that  infants  had  never  been  baptized — that 
is,  if,  as  Dr.  Howell  maintains,  they  never  had  been.  But 
they  had  been,  and  that  too  by  the  apostles  and  their  im- 
mediate successors,  as  Justin  Martyr  states;  and  this  Tcr- 
tullian  knew,  and  with  all  his  superstition  and  fanaticism  he 
had  too  much  principle  to  lie  about  it — indeed,  there  was  no 
shance  to  do  so  to  any  purpose,  for  how  could  he  deny  what 
everybody  knew? 

The  New  Testament  abounds  with  proofs  of  infant  baptism, 
as  we  have  shown. 

The  catacombs  of  Rome  are  strewed  with  mementos  of 
infant  members  of  the  church,  styled  in  the  monumental  in- 
scriptions "neophytes"  that  is,  newly-baptized  persons, 
"saints,"  and  "faithful  ones" — all  terms  applied  exclusively 
to  those  who  had  been  incorporated  with  the  church  by  bap- 
tism; and  these  mementos  date  from  the  apostolic  age  to 
the  close  of  the  primitive  persecutions. 

Irenseus  speaks  of  infants  reborn,  or  baptized,  as  the  ex- 
pression constantly  imports  in  the  writings  of  the  fathers. 
And  Origen,  who  was  contemporary  with  Tertullian,  having 
been  born  at  Alexandria,  a.  d.  185,  his  father,  grandfather, 
and  great-grandfather,  having  been  Christians  before  him — 
the  first  of  this  venerable  Christian  family  having  been,  in 
all  likelihood,  baptized  by  St.  Mark  himself — this  same 
Origen,  who,  Dr.  Howell  says,  was  the  first  to  defend  infant 
baptism,  says  expressly  that  it  was  derived  from  the  apostles! 
And  yet  our  veracious  archaeologist  affirms  that  nobody 
knew  anything  about  it  before  his  day!  It  is  very  likely 
that  Origen  was  the  first  of  any  note  that  defended  it,  as  it 
needed  no  defence  before  it  was  impugned  by  Tertullian. 
To  say,  however,  that  it  was  not  known  before  the  time  of  Oii- 
gen,  but  was  the  product  of  superstitions  which  then  pre- 
vailed in  the  church,  involves  a  defect  in  authorship  which 
we  do  not  like  to  characterize. 

With  so  much  facility  in  ignoring  or  inventing  facts,  we 
consider  Dr.  Howell  eminently  qualified  to  be  the  historian 
of  the  church — he  could  doubtless  point  out  to  us  in  every 
age,  the  one  holy,  catholic,  and  antipedobaptist  communion 
of  the  faithful,  in  contradistinction  from  all  the  corrupt  pro- 
geny of  infant  baptism.    If  he  affirms,  who  can  deny,  that 


dr.  howell's  evils  of  infant  baptism.  199 


"from  this  accumulation  of  theological  impurities,  like 
Python  from  the  mud  of  the  deluge,  sprang  infant  baptism?" 
— a  learned,  beautiful,  and  complimentary  comparison. 

But  we  are  told  that  "Infant  baptism  is  an  evil  because 
of  the  connection  it  assumes  with  the  moral  and  religious 
training  of  children." 

In  support  of  this  ambiguous  charge,  Dr.  Howell  gives  us 
an  heroic,  though  lugubrious  defense  of  "Baptists,"  who,  it 
seems,  are  "malignantly  pursued,"  with  "reproaches  and 
defamations,"  by  naughty  pedobaptists — the  "odious  charge 
being  rung  perpetually  in  the  public  ear  that  they  pay  little 
or  no  regard  to  the  moral  and  religious  training  of  their 
children." 

"Heretofore,"  he  says,  "Baptists  have  thought  it  scarcely 
worth  their  while,  on  this  topic,  to  defend  their  opinions  or 
practice  with  any  special  carefulness."  For  this  reason  he 
considers  himself  the  more  imperatively  called  upon  to  do 
this  needful  service.  And  having  performed  it,  we  hope  the 
defence  will  be  perfectly  satisfactory  to  "the  million"  foi 
whom  it  was  written.  But  as  the  persecution  complained 
of  is  a  raw-head  and  bloody-bones  affair  which  has  nothing 
to  do  with  the  subject  before  us,  we  shall  let  it  pass.  We 
have,  moreover,  nothing  to  say  in  reference  to  popish  per- 
versions of  infant  baptism — we  have  already  dealt  with  them. 

But  when  he  represents  "the  press  and  the  pulpit  of  all 
classes"  as  teaching  "baptized  young  people"  that  they 
have  "been  purified  by  baptism,"  and  do  not  require  to  be 
born  again,  we  wonder  at  his  unblushing  effrontery.  Do 
not  the  pastors  of  pedobaptist  churches  address  their  children 
"as  sinners?"  Do  they  not  labour  for  their  conversion? 
Do  they  not  exhort  them  to  personal  religion?  And  is  this 
incompatible  with  warnings  against  acting  "the  part  of  un- 
grateful deserters  ?"  May  they  not  be  considered  members 
of  the  visible  church,  and  yet  be  urged  to  make  their  calling 
and  election  sure? 

And  what  is  there  to  be  sneered  at,  except  by  an  infidel, 
in  the  language  cited  from  Dr.  Campbell:  "Under  such  a 
system  it  is  hardly  extravagant,  with  Richard  Baxter  and 
Dr.  Miller,  to  believe  that  in  nineteen  cases  out  of  twenty, 
our  children  would  grow  up  dutiful,  sober,  serious,  and  be- 


200 


STRICTURES  ON 


fore  they  reached  mature  age,  recognize  their  membership  m 
a  personal  act,  with  sincerity  and  edification?"  Instead  of 
superseding  the  work  of  the  Spirit  and  the  necessity  of  per- 
sonal repentance  and  faith,  those  divines  enforce  these  im- 
portant points  upon  the  "baptized  young  people"  of  the 
church,  on  the  ground  of  their  baptism,  which  so  strikingly 
sets  forth  the  former  as  a  privilege  which  they  are  entitled 
to  claimj  and  the  latter  as  a  duty  which  they  are  bound  tc 
discharge. 

A  consistent  pedobaptist  must  be  orthodox.  "  The  sancti- 
fication  of  the  Spirit  and  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Jesus 
Christ"  cannot  but  constitute  a  leading  feature  in  his  reli- 
gious system.  One  of  the  great  recommendations  of  infant 
baptism,  as  formerly  of  circumcision,  is  its  connection  with 
the  moral  and  religious  training  of  children  ;  and  we  only 
wish  the  Divine  intention  in  this  matter  were  faithfully  carried 
out  in  all  the  churches  of  Christ. 

Dr.  Howell  writes  for  "the  million" — that  is,  for  Buncombe. 
Hence  he  says:  "Infant  baptism  is  an  evil,  because  it  is  the 
grand  foundation  upon  which  rests  the  union  of  Church  and 
State." 

He  tells  "  the  million"  tnat  "  Infant  baptism  is  inseparable 
from  the  union  of  Church  and  State."  Of  course,  then,  all 
the  churches  in  the  United  States,  except  the  antipedobaptist, 
are  united  to  the  State  ! 

But,  perhaps,  he  means  that  every  State  church  must  be  a 
pedobaptist  church.  What  then  ?  Every  State  church  has 
had  a  ministry — popish,  prelatical,  presbyterial,  or  congrega- 
tional— and  every  State  church  must  have  a  ministry  of  some 
sort :  is  the  ministry,  therefore,  to  be  abolished  ? 

We  can  very  well  conceive,  however,  that  an  antipedo- 
baptist church,  if  it  had  the  chance,  might  be  as  closely 
united  to  the  State  as  is  the  Romish  or  Anglican  establish- 
ment. Dr.  Howell  says  truly,  that  the  union  of  Church  and 
State  began  with  Constantine.  He  does  not  seem  to  be 
aware  that  the  first  Christian  emperor  was  not  baptized  until 
shortly  before  his  death,  when  Eusebius  baptized  him  by 
pouring.  Yet  Constantine  had  more  to  do  with  the  affairs 
of  the  church  than  any  monarch  that  ever  swayed  the  British 
sceptre,  not  excluding  Henry  VIII. 


dr.  howell's  evils  of  infant  baptism.  201 


That  was  the  age  when  the  quasi  antipedobaptist  principles 
of  Tertullian  prevailed,  and  it  became  quite  fashionable,  in 
many  places,  to  postpone  the  baptism  of  children,  on  the  su- 
perstitious grounds  already  noted.  Yet  never  was  the  church 
more  closely  wedded  to  the  State  than  in  the  days  of  Con- 
stantine and  his  immediate  successors.  Every  sciolist  in 
church  history  knows  that  infant  baptism  had  nothing  to  do 
with  this  unholy  alliance. 

Instead  of  saying  "  that  the  practice  of  baptizing  infants 
did  not  spread  extensively  till  after  Christianity  became  the 
State  religion/'  it  would  be  more  consonant  to  the  truth  of 
history  to  say,  that  it  was  less  prevalent  in  the  age  of  Con- 
stantine than  in  primitive  times,  when  we  never  hear  of  the 
head  of  a  family  being  baptized  without  his  children. 

But  when  the  superstition  of  Tertullian  and  the  worldliness 
of  Constantine  united  their  influences  in  corrupting  the  sim- 
plicity of  Christians,  they  began  to  postpone  baptism.  The 
mother  of  Augustin  did  not  baptize  him,  for  fear  he  might 
fall  into  sin  afterward.  And  Augustin  says  that  this  was 
common  in  his  day ;  forasmuch  as  they  did  not  lay  so  much 
stress  upon  sins  committed  before  baptism  as  after,  thinking 
that  baptism  cashed  away  both  original  and  actual  sin. 
Basil,  Gregory  Nyssen,  Ambrose,  and  others,  labored  hard 
to  bring  the  church  back  to  the  apostolic  practice  in  this 
matter.  Gregory  Nazianzen,  who  was  contemporary  with 
Constantine,  pointedly  rebukes  the  people  for  postponing 
baptism.  He  says:  "Art  thou  a  youth?  fight  against  plea- 
sures and  passions  with  this  auxiliary  strength :  list  thyself 
in  God's  army.  Art  thou  old  ?  Let  thy  gray  hairs  hasten 
thee.  Strengthen  thy  age  with  baptism.  Hast  thou  an  in- 
fant child?  Let  not  wickedness- have  the  advantage  of  him. 
Let  him  be  sanctified  from  his  infancy.  Let  him  be  dedicated 
from  his  cradle,  in  the  Spirit.  Thou,  as  a  faint-hearted 
mother  and  of  little  faith,  art  afraid  of  giving  him  the  seal, 
because  of  the  weakness  of  nature/' 

Speaking  of  those  who  neglect  baptism,  he  says :  "  Some 
of  them  live  like  beasts,  and  regard  not  baptism.  Some  value 
baptism,  but  delay  the  receiving  of  it,  either  out  of  negli- 
gence, or  a  greediness  longer  to  enjoy  their  lusts.  But  some 
have  it  not  in  their  own  power  to  receive  it,  either  because 
9* 


202 


STRICTURES  ON 


of  their  infancy  perhaps,  or  because  of  some  accident  entirely 
involuntary."  He  then  proceeds  to  denounce  this  disregard 
and  postponement  of  the  ordinance. 

Now  let  it  be  remembered  that  it  was  during  this  decline 
of  pedobaptism  that  the  union  of  Church  and  State  was  ef- 
fected. And  yet  Dr.  Howell  says  that  "infant  baptism  is 
inseparable  from  the  union  of  Church  and  State.  They  are 
essential  to  each  other  !" 

He  seems  to  take  great  pleasure  in  recognizing  the  Ana- 
baptists of  Germany  as  his  spiritual  ancestors — this  being 
necessary  to  make  out  the  uninterrupted  succession  of  anti- 
pedobaptist  immersers.  But  cannot  he  see  that  the  apostle 
of  those  worthies,  Thomas  Munzer,  did  all  in  his  power  to 
unite  Church  and  State  upon  an  antipedobaptist  platform? 
Indeed,  the  Church  was  to  be  the  state ;  and  Munzer  was  to 
be  both  king  and  priest  in  this  glorious  theocracy.  Ad- 
dressing the  peasants  and  miners,  he  says:  "When  will  you 
shake  off  your  slumbers?  Arise  and  fight  the  battle  of  the 
Lord.  The  time  is  come.  France,  Germany  and  Italy  are 
up  and  doing.  Forward,  forward,  forward!  Dran,  dran, 
dran!  Heed  not  the  cries  of  the  ungodly.  They  will  weep 
like  children,  but  be  you  pitiless.  Dran,  dran,  dran  !  Fire 
burns.  Let  your  swords  be  ever  tinged  with  blood.  Dran, 
dran,  dran!  Work  while  it  is  day."  He  signed  himself, 
"Munzer,  God's  servant  against  the  ungodly."  And  in  his 
letter  to  the  prince  he  wrote,  "Munzer,  armed  with  the 
sword  of  Gideon." 

The  curious  reader  may  find  a  fuller  account  of  the  "Bap 
tist"  union  of  Church  and  State,  at  the  time  of  the  Reforma- 
tion, in  the  History  of  Dr.  Merle  D'Aubigne.  But  as  Dr. 
Howell  insinuates  a  caveat  in  reference  to  the  reliableness  of 
that  historian,  we  will  cite  a  paragraph  or  two  on  the  subject 
from  the  Church  History  of  Dr.  Gregory,  who,  so  far  as  we 
know,  is  universally  considered  an  historian,  equally  erudite 
and  candid.    He  says: 

It  was  observed  that,  in  a  very  early  period  of  the  Refor- 
mation, certain  of  the  disciples  of  Luther,  and  particularly 
one  of  the  name  of  Muncer,  adopted  opinions  in  some  in- 
stances apparently  replete  with  enthusiasm,  and  on  some 
occasions  proceeded  to  the  disturbance  of  the  public  tran- 


DR.  HOWELL'S  EVILS  OF  INFANT  BAPTISM.  203 


quillity.  From  these  reformers  proceeded  the  sect  of  the 
Anabaptists.  They  first  made  their  appearance  in  the  pro 
vinces  of  Upper  Germany,  where  the  severity  of  the  magis- 
trates kept  them  under  control.  But  in  the  Netherlands  and 
Westphalia  they  obtained  admittance  into  several  towns,  and 
spread  their  principles. 

The  most  remarkable  of  their  religious  tenets  related  to 
the  sacrament  of  baptism,  which,  as  they  contended,  ought 
to  be  administered  only  to  persons  grown  up  to  years  of 
understanding,  and  should  be  performed,  not  by  sprinkling 
them  with  water,  but  by  dipping  them  in  it:  for  this  reason 
they  condemned  the  baptism  of  infants;  and  rebaptizing  all 
whom  they  admitted  into  their  society,  the  sect  came  to  be 
distinguished  by  the  name  of  Anabaptists. 

To  this  peculiar  notion  concerning  baptism,  they  added 
other  principles  of  a  most  enthusiastic  as  well  as  dangerous 
nature.  They  maintained  that  among  Christians,  who  had 
the  precepts  of  the  gospel  to  direct,  and  the  Spirit  of  God  to 
guide  them,  the  office  of  magistracy  was  not  only  unnecessary, 
but  an  unlawful  encroachment  on  their  spiritual  liberty: 
that  the  distinctions  occasioned  by  birth,  or  rank,  or  wealth, 
being  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the  gospel,  which  considers 
all  men  as  equal,  should  be  entirely  abolished:  that  all 
Christians,  throwing  their  possessions  into  one  common  stock, 
should  live  together  in  that  state  of  equality  %  hich  becomes 
members  of  the  same  family:  that,  as  neithei  the  laws  of 
nature,  nor  the  precepts  of  the  New  Testament,  had  imposed 
any  restraints  upon  men  with  regard  to  the  number  of  wives 
which  they  might  marry,  they  should  use  that  liberty  which 
God  had  granted  to  the  patriarchs. 

Such  opinions,  propagated  and  maintained  with  enthu- 
siastic zeal  and  boldness,  were  not  long  without  pioducing 
the  violent  effects  natural  to  them.  Two  Anabaptist  prophets, 
John  Matthias,  a  baker  of  Haerlem,  and  John  Boccold  or 
Beukels,  a  journeyman  tailor  of  Leyden,  possessed  with  the 
rage  of  making  proselytes,  fixed  their  residence  at  Munster, 
an  imperial  city  of  Westphalia,  of  the  first  rank,  under  the 
sovereignty  of  its  bishop,  but  governed  by  its  own  senate 
and  consuls.  As  neither  of  these  fanatics  wanted  the  talents 
requisite  in  desperate  enterprises,  great  resolution,  the  ap- 


204 


STRICTURES  ON 


pearaiiCe  of  sanctity,  bold  pretensions  to  inspiration,  and  a 
confident  and  plausible  manner  of  discoursing,  they  soon 
gained  many  converts.  Among  these  were  Ilothman,  who 
had  first  preached  the  Protestant  doctrine  in  Munster,  and 
Knipperdoling,  a  citizen  of  considerable  eminence. 

Emboldened  by  the  countenance  of  such  disciples,  they 
openly  taught  their  opinions;  and  not  satisfied  with  that 
liberty,  they  made  several  attempts,  though  without  success, 
to  become  masters  of  the  town,  in  order  to  get  their  tenets 
established  by  public  authority.  At  last,  having  secretly 
called  in  their  associates  from  the  neighbouring  country, 
they  suddenly  took  possession  of  the  arsenal  and  senate 
house  in  the  night,  and  running  through  the  streets  with 
drawn  swords,  and  horrible  howlings,  cried  out  alternately, 
44 Repent  and  be  baptized/'  and,  "Depart,  ye  ungodly." 
The  senators,  the  canons,  the  nobility,  together  with  the 
more  sober  citizens,  whether  Papists  or  Protestants,  terrified 
at  their  threats  and  outcries,  fled  in  confusion,  and  left  the 
city  under  the  dominion  of  a  frantic  multitude,  consisting 
chiefly  of  strangers. 

Nothing  now  remaining  to  overawe  or  control  them,  they 
set  about  modelling  the  government  according  to  their  own 
wild  ideas;  and  though  at  first  they  showed  so  much  reve- 
rence for  the  ancient  constitution  as  to  elect  senators  of  their 
own  sect,  and  to  appoint  Knipperdoling  and  another  prose- 
lyte consuls,  this  was  nothing  more  than  form;  for  all  their 
proceedings  were  directed  by  Matthias,  who,  in  the  style, 
and  with  the  authority  of  a  prophet,  uttered  his  commands, 
which  it  was  instant  death  to  disobey. 

Having  begun  with  encouraging  the  multitude  to  pillage 
the  churches,  and  deface  their  ornaments,  he  enjoined  them 
to  destroy  all  books  except  the  Bible,  as  useless  or  impious: 
lie  ordered  the  estates  of  such  as  fled  to  be  confiscated  and 
sold  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  adjacent  country:  he  com- 
manded every  man  to  bring  forth  his  gold,  silver,  and  other 
precious  effects,  and  to  lay  them  at  his  feet:  the  wealth 
amassed  by  these  means  he  deposited  in  a  public  treasury, 
and  named  deacons  to  dispense  it  for  the  common  use  of  all. 
The  members  of  this  commonwealth  being  thus  brought  to  a 
perfect  equality,  he  commanded  all  of  them  to  eat  at  tablet 


DR.  HOWELl/s  EVILS  OF  INFANT  BAPTISM.  205 


prepared  in  public,  and  even  prescribed  the  dishes  which 
were  to  be  served  up  each  day. 

Having  finished  his  plan  of  reformation,  his  next  care  was 
to  provide  for  the  defense  of  the  city;  and  he  took  measures 
for  that  purpose  with  a  prudence  which  betrayed  nothing 
of  fanaticism.  He  collected  large  magazines  of  every  kind: 
he  repaired  and  extended  the  fortifications,  obliging  every 
person,  without  distinction,  to  work  in  his  turn:  he  formed 
such  as  were  capable  of  bearing  arms  into  regular  bodies, 
and  endeavoured  to  add  the  stability  of  discipline  to  the  im- 
petuosity of  enthusiasm. 

He  sent  emissaries  to  the  Anabaptists  in  the  Low  Coun- 
tries, inviting  them  to  assemble  at  Munster,  which  he  digni- 
fied with  the  name  of  Mount  Sion,  that  they  might  set  out 
to  reduce  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  under  their  dominion. 
He  himself  was  unwearied  in  attending  to  every  thing  ne- 
cessary for  the  security  or  increase  of  the  sect;  animating 
his  disciples  by  his  own  example  to  decline  no  labour,  as 
well  as  to  submit  to  every  hardship;  and  their  enthusiastic 
passions  being  kept  from  subsiding  by  a  perpetual  succession 
of  exhortations,  revelations,  and  prophecies,  they  seemed 
ready  to  undertake  or  to  suffer  any  thing  in  maintenance  of 
their  opinions. 

While  they  were  thus  employed,  the  Bishop  of  Munster, 
having  assembled  a  considerable  army,  advanced  to  besiege 
the  town.  On  his  approach,  Matthias  sallied  out  at  the 
head  of  some  chosen  troops,  attacked  one  quarter  of  his 
camp,  forced  it,  and  after  great  slaughter  returned  to  the 
city  loaded  with  glory  and  with  spoil.  Intoxicated  with  this 
success,  he  appeared  next  day  brandishing  a  spear,  and 
declared,  that,  in  imitation  of  Gideon,  he  would  go  forth  with 
a  handful  of  men,  and  smite  the  host  of  the  ungodly.  Thirty 
persons,  whom  he  named,  followed  him  without  hesitation 
in  this  wild  enterprise,  and,  rushing  on  the  enemy  with 
frantic  courage,  were  cut  off  to  a  man. 

The  death  of  their  prophet  occasioned  at  first  great  con- 
sternation among  his  disciples;  but  Boccold,  by  the  same 
gifts  and  pretensions,  which  had  gained  Matthias  credit, 
soon  revived  their  spirits  and  hopes  to  such  a  degree,  that 
lie  succeeded  the  deceased  prophet  in  the  same  absolute  di- 


206 


STRICTURES  ON 


rection  of  all  their  affairs.  As  he  did  not  possess  that  enter 
prising  courage  which  distinguished  his  predecessor,  he 
satisfied  himself  with  carrying  on  a  defensive  war;  and  with- 
out attempting  to  annoy  the  enemy  by  sallies,  he  waited  for 
the  succors  he  expected  from  the  Low  Countries,  the  arrival 
of  which  was  often  foretold  and  promised  by  their  prophets. 

But  though  less  daring  in  action  than  Matthias,  he  was  a 
wilder  enthusiast,  and  of  more  unbounded  ambition.  Soon 
after  the  death  of  his  predecessor,  having,  by  obscure  visions 
and  prophecies,  prepared  the  multitude  for  some  extraordi- 
nary event,  he  marched  through  the  streets  and  proclaimed 
with  a  loud  voice,  "That  the  kingdom  of  Sion  was  at  hand: 
that  whatever  was  highest  on  earth  should  be  brought  low, 
and  whatever  was  lowest  should  be  exalted."  In  order  to 
fulfil  this,  he  commanded  the  churches,  as  the  most  lofty 
buildings  in  the  city,  to  be  levelled  with  the  ground:  he 
degraded  the  senators  chosen  by  Matthias,  and  depriving 
Knipperdoling  of  the  consulship,  the  highest  office  in  the 
commonwealth,  appointed  him  to  execute  the  lowest  and 
most  infamous,  that  of  common  hangman,  to  which  strange 
transition  the  other  agreed,  not  only  without  murmuring,  but 
with  the  utmost  joy;  and  such  was  the  despotic  rigor  of 
Boccold's  administration,  that  he  was  called  almost  every 
day  to  perform  some  duty  or  other  of  his  wretched  function. 
In  place  of  the  deposed  senators,  he  named  twelve  judges, 
according  to  the  number  of  tribes  in  Israel,  to  preside  in  all 
affairs,  retaining  to  himself  the  same  authority  which  Moses 
anciently  possessed  as  legislator  of  the  people. 

Not  satisfied,  however,  with  power  or  titles  which  were 
not  supreme,  a  prophet,  whom  he  had  gained  and  tutored, ' 
having  called  the  multitude  together,  declared  it  to  be  the 
will  of  God,  that  John  Boccold  should  be  king  of  Sion,  and 
sit  on  the  throne  of  David.  John,  kneeling  down,  accepted  r 
of  the  call,  which  he  solemnly  protested  had  been  revealed 
likewise  to  himself,  and  was  immediately  acknowledged  as 
monarch  by  the  deluded  multitude.  From  that  moment  he 
assumed  all  the  state  and  pomp  of  royalty.  He  wore  a 
crown  of  gold,  and  was  clad  in  the  richest  and  most  sump- 
tuous garments.  A  Bible  was  carried  on  his  one  hand,  a 
naked  sword  on  the  other.    A  great  body  of  guards  accom- 


DR.  HOWELL* S  EVILS  OF  INFANT  BAPTISM.  207 


panied  him  when  he  appeared  in  public.  He  coined  money 
stamped  with  his  own  image,  and  appointed  the  great  officers 
of  his  household  and  kingdom,  among  whom  Knipperdoling 
was  nominated  governor  of  the  city,  as  a  reward  for  his 
former  submission. 

Having  now  attained  the  height  of  power,  Boccold  began 
to  discover  passions  which  he  had  hitherto  restrained,  or  in-, 
dalged  only  in  secret.  As  the  excesses  of  enthusiasm  have 
been  observed  in  every  age  to  lead  to  sensual  gratifications, 
the  same  constitution  that  is  susceptible  of  the  former  being 
remarkably  prone  to  the  latter,  he  instructed  the  prophets 
and  teachers  to  harangue  the  people  for  several  days  con- 
cerning the  lawfulness  and  even  necessity  of  taking  more 
wives  than  one,  which  they  asserted  to  be  one  of  the  privi- 
leges granted  by  God  to  the  saints. 

When  their  ears  were  once  accustomed  to  this  licentious 
doctrine,  and  their  passions  inflamed  with  the  prospect  of 
such  unbounded  indulgence,  he  himself  set  them  an  example 
of  using  what  he  called  their  Christian  liberty,  by  marrying 
at  once  three  wives,  among  whom  the  widow  of  Matthias,  a 
woman  of  singular  beauty,  was  one.  As  he  was  allured  by 
beauty  or  the  love  of  variety,  he  gradually  added  to  the 
number  of  his  wives  until  they  amounted  to  fourteen,  though 
the  widow  of  Matthias  was  the  only  one  dignified  with  the 
title  of  a  queen,  or  who  shared  with  him  the  splendor  and 
ornaments  of  royalty. 

After  the  example  of  their  prophet,  the  multitude  gave 
themselves  up  to  the  most  licentious  and  uncontrolled  grati- 
fication of  their  desires.  No  man  remained  satisfied  with  a 
single  wife.  Not  to  use  their  Christian  liberty  was  deemed  a 
crime.  Persons  were  appointed  to  search  the  houses  for 
young  women  grown  up„  to  maturity,  whom  they  instantly 
compelled  to  marry. 

Together  with  polygamy,  freedom  of  divorce,  its  insepa- 
rable attendant,  was  introduced,  and  became  a  new  source 
of  corruption.  Every  excess  was  committed,  of  which  the 
passions  of  men  are  capable,  when  restrained  neither  by  the 
authority  of  laws  nor  the  sense  of  decency ;  and  by  a  mon- 
strous and  almost  incredible  conjunction,  voluptuousness  was 


208 


STRICTURES  ON 


engrafted  on  religion,  and  dissolute  riot  accompanied  the 
austerities  of  fanatical  devotion. 

Meanwhile  the  German  princes  were  highly  offended  at 
the  insult  offered  to  their  dignity  by  Boccold's  presumptuous 
usurpation  of  royal  honors  ;  and  the  profligate  manners  of  his 
followers,  which  were  a  reproach  to  the  Christian  name,  filled 
men  of  all  professions  with  horror.  Luther,  who  had  testified 
against  this  fanatical  spirit  on  its  first  appearance,  now 
deeply  lamented  its  progress,  and  having  exposed  the  delu- 
sion with  great  strength  of  argument,  as  well  as  acrimony  of 
style,  called  loudly  on  all  the  States  of  Germany  to  put  a 
stop  to  a  frenzy  no  less  pernicious  to  society  than  fatal  to 
religion. 

The  emperor,  occupied  with  other  cares  and  projects,  had 
not  leisure  to  attend  to  such  a  distant  object ;  but  the  princes 
of  the  empire,  assembled  by  the  King  of  the  Romans,  voted  a 
supply  of  men  and  money  to  the  Bishop  of  Munster,  who, 
being  unable  to  keep  a  sufficient  army  on  foot,  had  converted 
the  siege  of  the  town  into  a  blockade.  The  forces  raised  in 
consequence  of  this  resolution  were  put  under  the  command 
of  an  officer  of  experience,  who,  approaching  the  town  toward 
the  end  of  spring,  in  the  year  1535,  pressed  it  more  closely 
than  formerly ;  but  found  the  fortifications  so  strong,  and  so 
diligently  guarded,  that  he  durst  not  attempt  an  assault. 

It  was  now  above  fifteen  months  since  the  Anabaptists  had 
established  their  dominion  in  Munster:  they  had,  during 
that  time,  undergone  prodigious  fatigue  in  working  on  the 
fortifications  and  performing  military  duty.  Notwithstand- 
ing the  prudent  attention  of  their  king  to  provide  for  their 
subsistence,  and  his  frugal  as  well  as  regular  economy  in 
their  public  meals,  they  began  to  feel  the  approach  of  famine. 
Several  small  bodies  of  their  brethren,  who  were  advancing 
to  their  assistance  from  the  Low  Countries,  had  been  inter- 
cepted and  cut  to  pieces ;  and,  while  all  Germany  was  feady 
to  combine  against  them,  they  had  no  prospect  of  succor. 

But  such  was  the  ascendency  which  Boccold  had  acquired 
over  the  multitude,  and  so  powerful  the  fascination  of  en- 
thusiasm, that  their  hopes  were  as  sanguine  as  ever,  and 
they  hearkened  with  implicit  credulity  to  the  visions  and  pre« 
dictions  of  their  prophets,  who  assured  them  that  the  A1- 


R.  HOWELl/s  EVILS  OF  INFANT  BAPTISM.  209 


mighty  would  speedily  interpose,  in  order  to  deliver  the  city. 
The  faith,  however,  of  some  few,  shaken  by  the  violence  and 
length  of  their  sufferings,  began  to  fail :  but  being  suspected 
of  an  inclination  to  surrender  to  the  enemy,  they  were 
punished  with  immediate  death,  as  guilty  of  impiety  in  dis- 
trusting the  power  of  God. 

By  this  time  the  besieged  endured  the  utmost  rigor  of 
famine  ;  but  they  chose  rather  to  suffer  hardships,  the  recital 
of  which  is  shocking  to  humanity,  than  to  listen  to  the  terms 
of  capitulation  offered  them  by  the  bishop.  At  last,  a  de- 
serter, whom  they  had  taken  into  their  service,  being  either 
less  intoxicated  with  the  fumes  of  enthusiasm,  or  unable  any 
longer  to  bear  such  distress,  made  his  escape  to  the  enemy. 
He  informed  their  general  of  a  weak  part  in  the  fortifications 
which  he  had  observed,  and  assuring  him  that  the  besieged, 
exhausted  with  hunger  and  fatigue,  kept  watch  there  with 
little  care,  he  offered  to  lead  a  party  thither  in  the  night. 
The  proposal  was  accepted,  and  a  chosen  body  of  troops  ap- 
pointed for  the  service ;  who,  scaling  the  walls  unperceived, 
seized  one  of  the  gates,  and  admitted  the  rest  of  the  army. 

The  Anabaptists,  though  surprised,  defended  themselves 
in  the  market-place  with  valor,  heightened  by  despair;  but 
being  overpowered  by  numbers,  and  surrounded  on  every 
hand,  most  of  them  were  slain,  and  the  remainder  taken 
prisoners.  Among  the  last  were  the  king  and  Knipperdoling. 
The  king,  loaded  with  chains,  was  carried  from  city  to  city 
as  a  spectacle  to  gratify  the  curiosity  of  the  people,  and  was 
exposed  to  all  their  insults.  His  spirit,  however,  was  not 
broken  or  humbled  by  this  sad  reverse  of  his  condition ;  and 
he  adhered  with  unshaken  firmness  to  the  distinguishing 
tenets  of  his  sect. 

After  this,  he  was  brought  back  to  Munster,  the  scene  of 
his  royalty  and  crimes,  and  put  to  death  with  tortures, 
which  he  bore  with  astonishing  fortitude.  This  extraordi- 
nary man,  who  had  been  able  to  acquire  such  amazing 
dominion  over  the  minds  of  his  followers,  and  to  excite 
commotions  so  dangerous  to  society,  was  only  twenty-six 
years  of  age.  Together  with  its  monarch,  the  kingdom  of 
the  Anabaptists  came  to  an  end. 

From  this  perfectly  trustworthy  account  of  Dr.  Howell's 


210 


STRICTURES  ON 


ecclesiastical  ancestors,  it  is  clear  that  they  wanted  nothing 
but  the  power  to  establish  their  own  church  upon  the  ruins 
of  the-  churches  then  in  favor,  and  to  substitute  their  own 
beautiful  theocracy  for  every  political  "ordinance  of  man" 
then  in  existence.  That  they  were  "  strongly  baptistical" 
cannot  be  questioned.  They  are  pronounced  good  "Bap- 
tists" by  Dr.  Howell,  who,  whatever  may  be  the  feeling  of 
some  fastidious  antipedobaptists,  is  not  ashamed  to  call  them 
"  brethren."  And  truly  there  is  a  family  likeness  between 
them— they  seem  to  be  of  one  blood.  Dr.  Howell  has 
scarcely  any  thing  more  to  the  point  than  the  following 
modest  and  beautiful  language  used  by  his  "brethren"  of 
the  sixteenth  century:  "The  baptism  of  infants  is  a  horrible 
abomination — a  flagrant  impiety,  invented  by  the  evil  spirit 
and  by  Pope  Nicholas  II."  "  To  baptize  a  child  is  of  no 
more  use  than  baptizing  a  cat !" 

They  may  have  held  some  other  principles  not  quite  so 
much  to  the  mind  of  Dr.  Howell  as  their  opposition  to  infant 
baptism.  In  fact,  they  were  the  Mormons  of  the  sixteenth 
century,  and  the  Mormons  are  the  Anabaptists  of  our  times 
— though  Dr.  Howell  claims  that  honor  for  "the  denomina- 
tion" of  which  he  is  the  invincible  champion.  But  we 
submit,  that  the  Mormons  contend  for  "believers'  baptism," 
and  that  by  immersion  alone  ;  and  in  defiance  of  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  United  States  they  have  established  a  politico- 
ecclesiastical  government — a  union  of  Church  and  State — 
exhibiting  many  of  the  beautiful  features  of  the  Anabaptist 
theocracy.  And  yet  Dr.  Howell  says :  "  The  union  of 
Church  and  State  rests  for  its  foundation  upon  infant  bap- 
tism, without  which  it  cannot  exist.  Destroy  infant  baptism, 
and  you  destroy  the  union  of  Church  and  State.  That  un- 
hallowed relation  is  no  longer  possible."  What  a  Daniel  is 
this  come  to  judgment ! 

But  "Infant  Baptism  is  an  evil,  because  it  injures  the 
credit  of  religion  with  intelligent  men  of  the  world." 

There  is  some  ambiguity  in  this  language — all  the  better 
though  for  Dr.  Howell.  There  is  a  sense  in  which  religion 
does  lose  credit  with  the  men  of  the  world,  on  account  of 
infant  baptism.  Wor/ldly  people  are  ready  to  say  with  Dr 
tlowell,  "  The  baptism  of  a  little  infant !    What  sense  or 


dr.  howell's  evils  of  infant  baptism.  211 


reason  is  there  in  it?  there  is  none.'"  But  then  they  are 
ready  to  say  the  same  of  the  baptism  of  an  adult — they  say 
the  same  of  the  breaking  of  bread  in  the  Lord's  supper. 
They  see  no  sense  or  reason  in  any  of  the  simple  rites  and 
services  of  Christianity.  So  the  philosophers,  the  intelligent 
men  of  the  heathen  world,  saw  no  sense  or  reason  in  circum- 
cision— "  The  circumcision  of  a  little  infant !  What  sense 
or  reason  is  there  in  it?  There  is  none."  But  must  all  the 
mysteries  of  religion  be  laid  aside,  because  they  may  be 
to  the  Jews  a  stumbling  block,  or  to  the  Greeks  foolish- 
ness ? 

But  there  is  a  sense  in  which  it  may  be  desirable  that 
religion  should  maintain  its  credit  with  intelligent  men  of 
the  world ;  and  in  this  sense  we  deny  that  infant  baptism, 
properly  performed,  ever  injured  it  in  their  estimation.  It 
never  did,  unless  perhaps  in  the  case  of  those  "  intelligent 
men  of  the  world"  who  have  been  unhappily  brought  under 
the  influence  of  such  men  as  Dr.  Howell,  who  take  pains  to 
caricature  and  ridicule  the  ordinance.  We  should  not,  how- 
ever, consider  a  man  remarkable  for  intelligence,  though  he 
might  be  worldly  enough,  perhaps,  who  would  mistake  the 
hackneyed  charges  of  Dr.  Howell  for  argument: — infant 
baptism  is  irrational— unauthorized — the  very  essence  of 
equivocation  and  deception — a  sectarian  device — therefore  it 
dishonors  religion ! 

Now  as  this  is  nothing  better  than  assumption,  baseless 
assumption,  and  slanderous  withal,  we  shall  deny  it  in  toto; 
and  on  the  contrary  we  maintain,  that  the  due  performance 
of  infant  baptism  has  a  most  happy  tendency  to  impress 
reflecting  minds  with  the  beauty  and  majesty  of  religion; 
and  this  result  we  have  witnessed  on  multiplied  occasions. 
And  we  deliberately  declare,  that  beneficial  effects  can  be 
produced  on  the  minds  of  intelligent  men  of  the  world,  by 
the  public  solemn  administration  of  this  edifying  ordinance, 
which  cannot  be  produced  by  any  other  agency. 

And  observe,  we  speak  that  we  do  know,  and  testify  that 
we  have  seen:  we  do  not  deal  in  mere  assumption  and  dog- 
matic assertion  about  something  which,  in  the  nature  of  the 
case,  we  have  no  means  of  proving — for  we  defy  Dr.  Howell 
to  prove  that  the  credit  of  religion  was  ever  injured  by  infant 


£12 


STRICTURES  ON 


baptism,  except  in  such  cases  where  the  ordinance  was  not 
performed  in  a  becoming  manner,  as  religion  frequently  suf- 
fers from  a  stupid  sermon,  or  where  the  "  intelligent  men  of 
the  world"  are  of  the  prejudiced  classes  to  which  we  have 
alluded. 

The  charge  that  "  Infant  Baptism  enfeebles  the  power  of 
the  church  to  combat  error"  is  made  by  Dr.  Howell  with  his 
usual  modesty. 

He  relieves  the  monotony  of  his  vain  repetitions,  however, 
by  a  little  fancy  work  about  the  errors  of  pedobaptist 
churches  and  their  mutual  criminations.  All,  of  course,  are 
bound  up  in  the  same  bundle  with  popery,  because,  for- 
sooth, popery  practises  infant  baptism.  Protestants  can  say 
nothing  against  the  "  theological  monstrosities"  of  popery, 
because  infant  baptism  is  one  of  them,  and  they  practise 
infant  baptism.  Is  not  that  reasoning?  The  antipedobap- 
tist  churches  alone  are  immaculate,  and  therefore  they  alone 
can  cope  successfully  with  the  corruptions  of  popery — ay, 
and  the  corruptions  of  Protestantism,  too  !  The  wonder  is, 
that  those  corruptions  ever  had  any  existence,  seeing  that 
"the  denomination,"  pure  and  incorruptible,  has  come  down 
from  the  apostles,  by  uninterrupted  succession,  to — Munzer, 
Eoger  Williams,  and  Dr.  Howell,  the  infallible  representa- 
tives of  the  martyrs,  confessors,  and  defenders  of  its  "  faith 
and  order." 

Dr.  Howell,  however,  ought  not  to  draw  quite  so  extrava 
gantly  upon  his  fancy  for  his  facts.  In  doing  this  he  has 
perpetrated  the  following  libel : — 

"Among  Methodists,  a  very  striking  corruption  is  the 
baptism  and  reception  to  their  communion,  of  'seekers.1 
And  who  are  these  seekers  t  They  are  persons  who  desire 
to  be  saved,  and  manifest  feeling  on  the  subject  of  religion, 
but  who  professedly  have  not  a  living  faith  in  Christ,  nor 
any  well-grounded  hope  of  eternal  life.  Against  this,  Pres- 
byterians of  all  classes  protest.  They  pronounce  it  a  gross 
error,  palpably  unscriptural,  and  not  to  be  endured !  The 
Methodist  brother  is  not  at  all  disconcerted.  He  tells  them 
plainly,  and  tells  them  truly:  The  baptism  of  seekers  is,  to 
say  the  least,  as  lawful  as  the  baptism  of  infants.  It  is,  in 
truth,  attended  with  prospects  even  more  encouraging,  since 


br.  howell's  evils  of  infant  baptism.  213 


these  seekers  may  soon  be  rejoicing  in  hope,  but  of  infants, 
no  such  expectation  is  reasonable.  The  Scriptures  favor 
one  as  much  as  they  do  the  other.  His  assailants  cannot 
answer  him.  They  are  silent.  He  is  henceforth  uninter 
rupted." 

Now,  candid  and  intelligent  "Presbyterians  of  all  classes/' 
and  some  antipedobaptists  too,  who  are  acquainted  with 
Methodist  terms  and  usages,  know  very  well  that  we  baptize 
none  as  "seekers"  that  do  not  measure  up  to  the  standard 
laid  down  by  St.  Peter  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  when  the 
three  thousand  who  were  "pricked  in  the  heart,  said  unto 
Peter  and  to  the  rest  of  the  apostles,  men  and  brethren,  what 
shall  we  do  V  Peter  did  not  tell  them  to  postpone  their 
baptism  until  they  should  possess  the  full  assurance  of  faith 
and  hope;  but  he  said  unto  them,  Repent,  and  be  baptized, 
every  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  remis- 
sion of  sins,  and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 
So  we  say  to  every  seeker  of  salvation.  And  we  baptize 
none  unless  they  repent  and  believe  the  gospel,  and  promise 
by  God's  grace  to  lead  a  holy  life. 

Such  'penitents  Dr.  Howell  would  call  believers,  and  im- 
merse them  by  the  thousand,  if  he  had  a  chance.  And  we 
have  never  found  a  Presbyterian,  of  any  class,  that  would 
reject  them.  The  difference  between  us  is  this:  our  Cal- 
vinistic  brethren,  including  the  antipedobaptists,  would  try 
to  make  them  feel  safe,  without  possessing  the  knowledge  of 
salvation  by  the  remission  of  their  sins,  through  the  direct 
witness  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  but  the  Methodists  would  press 
them  forward  to  the  attainment  of  this  blessing,  and  would 
not  let  them  rest  satisfied  with  their  baptism,  their  associa- 
tion with  believers,  their  supposed  election,  effectual  calling, 
and  infallible  perseverance,  or  any  thing  else  short  of  the 
inward  witness  of  their  acceptance  in  the  Beloved,  and  the 
incontestible  proofs  of  their  possessing  the  regenerating 
grace  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  symbolized  in  the  rite  of  initia- 
tion. 

Who  ever  heard  a  "  Methodist  brother,"  or  sister  either, 
defend  the  baptism  of  seekers  on  the  ground  invented  by 
Dr.  Howell?  and  what  Presbyterian  was  ever  silenced  by 
such  a  defence  ? 


STRICTURES  ON 


Dr.  Howell's  next  argument  is  decidedly  rich!  "We  ar« 
not  sure  that  it  ought  not  to  be  assigned  the  highest  rank  in 
the  discussion:  "Infant  Baptism  is  an  evil  because  it  is  the 
great  barrier  to  Christian  union  \" 

He  has  the  advantage  of  us  here.  We  cannot  retort  the 
argument.  We  cannot  say  that  antipedobaptist  exclusive- 
ness  is  the  great  barrier  to  Christian  union.  It  is,  indeed,  a 
barrier.  It  savors  very  much  of  schism,  and  is  therefore  to 
be  deplored  as  an  evil.  But  there  are  greater  evils  than  that 
in  the  world — greater  barriers  than  that  to  Christian  union. 
Bigotry,  which,  however  frequently  connected  with  that  ex- 
clusiveness — sometimes  beiug  its  parent  and  sometimes  its 
offspring,  but  which  in  thousands  of  happy  exceptions  is  not 
connected  with  it  at  all — bigotry  is  a  far  greater  obstacle  to 
Christian  union.  It  is  the  grand  obstacle.  "Master,  we  saw 
one  casting  out  devils  in  thy  name,  and  he  followeth  not  us ; 
and  we  forbade  him,  because  he  followeth  not  us."  That  is 
the  spirit  that  prevents  Christian  union ;  and  if  one  wishes  to 
know  more  of  its  manifestation,  let  him  read  Dr.  Howell  on 
the  Evils  of  Infant  Baptism. 

Dr.  Howell  will  let  you  cast  out  as  many  devils  as  you 
please,  provide  you  plunge  the  demoniacs  into  the  water,  and 
drown  the  evil  spirits  which  possess  them.  He  will  unite 
very  cordially  with  you,  provided  you  frame  your  organs  of 
speech  to  pronounce  his  shibboleth.  Otherwise,  he  can  have 
no  union  with  you  at  all,  as  "it  would  be  a  combination 
against  the  truth  and  purity  of  religion !"  Alas!  such  a 
bigot  knows  but  little  of  the  spirit  of  charity  which  is  the 
cement  of  Christian  fellowship,  which  recognizes  the  right 
of  private  judgment  in  all,  and  which  asks  of  no  man  any 
thing  besides  a  "professed  subjection  unto  the  gospel  of 
Christ,"  a  sincere  recognition  of  him  as  the  Lord  of  con- 
science, to  whom  alone  we  must  stand  or  fall. 

In  observing  the  spirit  of  this  volume,  we  are  reconciled 
to  the  ostracism  dealt  out  to  us  by  its  author.  We  can  afford 
to  "stand  by"  ourselves,  when  ordered  to  do  so  by  men  who 
in  their  own  esteem  are  so  much  holier  than  we. 

Dr.  Howell  repeats  one  of  his  former  charges  in  the  fol- 
lowing form:  "Infant  baptism  is  an  evil,  because  it  prevents 
the  salutary  impression  baptism  was  designed  to  make  upon 


0 


DR.  HOWELl/s  EVILS  OF  INFANT  BAPTISM.  215 


the  minds  both  of  those  who  receive  it  and  those  who  witness 
its  administration." 

We  have  already  shown  that  this  charge  is  not  true.  And 
it  cannot  be  made  true  by  Dr.  Howell's  caricature  of  the 
ordinance.  He  gets  into  heroics,  however,  when  contrasting 
" believers'  immersion"  with  ''baby-sprinkling."  Now  we 
do  not  deny  that  baptism  may  be  solemnly  administered  by 
immersion — a  believing  subject  and  serious  spectators  may 
be  edified  by  the  ordinance  thus  performed.  But  this  is  not 
always  the  case. 

Dr.  Howell  calls  infant  baptism  "a  farce."  We  shall  not 
so  designate  adult  immersion.  We  should  think  it  would  be 
more  like  a  tragedy  to  a  delicate,  modest  female — we  feel 
very  sure  she  must  shrink  back  from  it  with  feelings  of 
revulsion — at  any  rate,  we  cannot  witness  it  without  such 
feelings.  The  emotions  of  transport  which  Dr.  Howell 
attributes  to  the  candidates  do  not  always  obtain ;  and  with 
all  the  declamation  about  "believers'  baptism,"  it  is  not 
always  believers  that  are  baptized,  even  when  antipedobap- 
tists  are  the  immersers. 

Speaking  of  the  candidate,  Dr.  Howell  says,  "He  is  to  be 
baptized  but  once  in  his  life."  But  why  only  once,  if  bap- 
tism be  not  valid  unless  the  subject  be  a  regenerate  believer, 
and  he  should  prove  to  have  been  self-deceived,  or  a  hypo- 
crite, or  should  turn  from  the  holy  commandment  delivered 
unto  him,  and  afterward  repent  and  obtain  forgiveness? 
Why  not  give  him  then,  what  he  never  yet  had,  "believers' 
baptism?"  One  and  twenty  reasons  might  doubtless  be 
assigned  for  this  omission;  but  they  would  be  as  unsatisfac- 
tory, on  antipedobaptist  grounds,  as  the  same  number  paraded 
by  Dr.  Howell  to  prove  that  infant  baptism  is  the  most  dam- 
nable evil  this  side  damnation. 

And  happily  we  have  reached  the  last  of  those  formidable 
arguments.  This  one  and  twentieth  sapiently  affirms  that 
"Infant  baptism  retards  the  designs  of  Christ  in  the  conver- 
sion of  the  world." 

The  force  of  Dr.  Howell's  arguments  has  been  getting 
"  small  by  degrees  and  beautifully  less" — if  any  comparison 
be  possible  among  such  microscopic  objects.  Rhetoricians 
tell  us  when  our  arguments  are  weak,  we  must  put  them  all 


216 


STRICTURES  ON 


close  together,  and  they  will  help  to  support  each  other; 
and  if  any  are  specially  feeble,  put  them  in  the  middle,  and 
by  no  means  in  front  or  rear.  Unfortunately,  however,  for 
Dr.  Howell's  arguments,  none  of  them  have  the  least  degree 
of  strength — they  are  all  as  weak  as  water,  being  in  fact 
composed  of  that  element — but  perhaps  that  which  is  the 
most  obviously  without  strength  is  put  last. 

Dr.  Howell  sees  four  or  five  denominations  struggling  for 
existence  in  a  little  village,  which  is  just  able  to  support  one. 
Immediately,  the  wicked  demon  of  infant  baptism  is  con- 
jured up  before  his  mind.  "  All  these  expenditures  of  time, 
and  strength,  and  money,  and  men,  are  results  of  our  divi- 
sions, and  they  have  their  seat  principally,  if  not  wholly,  in 
infant  baptism  V  Set  aside  infant  baptism,  and  at  once  Pre- 
latists  become  Presbyterians,  or  Presbyterians  become  Pre- 
latists:  both  of  them  become  Independents,  or  Independents 
become  Prelatists  or  Presbyterians.  Arminians  become  Cal- 
vinists,  or  Calvinists  become  Arminians.  Or  they  all  consent 
that  the  five,  or  five  hundred,  points  on  which  they  differ  are 
of  no  importance,  being  so  completely  overshadowed  by  the 
mammoth  evil,  infant  baptism,  which  is  now  utterly  de- 
stroyed by  the  one  and  twenty  arguments  of  this  little 
book. 

Some  ill-mannered  sectarian  might,  indeed,  suggest  that 
where  there  are  so  many  sects  there  is  a  convenient  way  of 
making  one  the  number  less — antipedobaptists  might  re- 
nounce their  errors,  abandon  their  schismatic  platform,  and 
connect  themselves  with  some  one  of  the  other  communions, 
according  to  their  predilections  in  regard  to  doctrines  or 
polity.  It  would  not  do  for  them  to  urge  to  the  contrary, 
their  understanding  of  the  Word  of  God,  their  convictions  of 
duty,  and  the  like,  for  every  pedobaptist  might  urge  the 
same.  How  preposterous  then  is  such  an  argument  against 
infant  baptism. 

The  question  of  the  translation  of  the  Bible  is,  moreover, 
brought  into  the  discussion.  A  less  adventurous  polemic 
would  have  left  that  out.  Does  Dr.  Howell  really  think  that 
men  have  lost  their  senses?  We  know  he  is  writing  for 
"the  million;"  but  then  not  all  of  these  are  utterly  stulti- 
fied. 


dr.  howell's  evils  of  infant  baptism.  217 


Can  any  man  with  one  grain  of  reason  imagine  that  the 
American  Bible  Society,  composed  almost  exclusively  of 
Christians  who  do  not  believe  that  the  word  baptism,  in  the 
New  Testament,  means  immersion,  could  sanction,  publish, 
and  circulate  a  translation  of  the  Scriptures  for  tbe  Burmese, 
Chinese,  or  any  other  heathen  nation,  in  which  that*  word 
should  be  so  rendered  ? — especially  when  they  issue  no  ver- 
sion among  Christians  that  does  not  leave  untouched  that 
sacred  term,  which  like  Jesus,  Christ,  angel,  prophet,  apostle, 
evangelist,  epistle,  and  many  an  expressive  term  besides, 
enters  into  and  enriches  the  theological  vocabulary  of  every 
Christian  tongue  ? 

Would  immersionists  sanction  the  rendering  of  baptism  by 
purification,  or  pouring,  or  sprinkling,  which  we  believe  to 
be  the  action  to  which  the  word,  refers  ?  And  who  is  guilty 
of  the  schism — who  is  chargeable  with  the  controversy — we 
who  are  willing  to  let  the  original  word  remain  without  ren- 
dering it  according  to  our  own  view  of  the  ordinance,  or  the 
immersionists,  who  will  not  be  satisfied  unless  it  be  rendered 
in  accordance  with  their  peculiar  notion  ?  Let  a  candid 
world — let  common  sense — decide.  Yet  this  is  a  proof  of  the 
evils  of  infant  baptism. 

And  so,  according  to  Dr.  Howell,  is  the  fact  that  Moham- 
medans and  heathens  are  scandalized  by  the  vices  of  Euro- 
pean and  American  merchants,  and  sailors,  and  soldiers, 
who  were  baptized  in  their  infancy.  And  were  not  the 
heathen,  in  ancient  times,  scandalized  at  the  vices  of  the 
Israelites,  who  had  all  been  circumcised  in  their  infancy? 
And  is  no  one  scandalized  at  the  vices  of  many  who  have 
been  buried  by  Dr.  Howell  and  his  brethren  in  "  a  liquid 
grave"  ?    But  what  does  all  this  prove  ? 

To  adduce  this  as  a  charge  against  infant  baptism,  is  as 
ridiculous  as  Dr.  Howell's  attempt,  again  repeated,  to  fasten 
the  odium  of  all  "  the  strifes  between  Baptists  and  Pedobap-  \ 
tists"  upon  the  latter.  We  suppose  where  the  latter  discuss 
this  subject  once,  the  former  bring  it  into  discussion  twenty 
times.  We  rarely  refer  to  it,  except,  as  in  the  present  in- 
stance, to  wipe  off  aspersions  and  to  defend  the  truth  so  re- 
peatedly and  so  unscrupulously  assailed.  We  do  not  affect 
the  namo  of  "  pedobap  tists :"  we  are  satisfied  with  that  of 
10 


218 


STRICTURES  ON 


Christians :  the  common  salvation — not  any  particular  part 
of  it — having  been  given  us  in  trust.  But  Dr.  Howell  and 
Ms  brethren  have  monopolized  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  and 
from  the  title  they  have  assumed — having  shortened  their 
old  family  name — it  would  seem  that  the  ordinance  has  mo- 
nopolized them.  We  are,  therefore,  to  be  charged  with  "  pre- 
venting the  progress  of  the  gospel,"  by  "engendering  per- 
petual strife,  disunion,  and  reproach,"  when  we  occasionally 
claim  to  have  some  part  and  lot  in  the  matter  of  Christianity. 
And  this  proves  the  evil — the  damning  evil — of  infant  bap- 
tism ! 

In  his  concluding  chapter,  Dr.  Howell  says :  "I  flatter  my- 
self that  I  have  shown  that  infant  baptism  is  an  unmitigated 
evil."  Self-flattery,  indeed !  Flattery  is  praise  given  where 
it  is  not  deserved :  such  praise  Dr.  Howell  gives  himself  at 
the  close  of  his  arduous  labors.  "Whether  or  not  "  the  mil- 
lion" for  whom  he  writes  will  endorse  the  award,  we  cannot 
say. 

We  recognize,  with  the  most  appropriate  consideration, 
his  condescension  in  calling  us  his  "  pedobaptist  brethren," 
after  having  ranked  us  with  the  worst  of  papists.  He  gra- 
ciously invites  us  to  pull  down  our  respective  churches  and 
seek  more  comfortable  quarters  in  his  communion ;  and  he 
seems  to  take  it  for  granted  that  we  will  do  so,  now  that  he 
has  enlightened  us  on  the  subject,  which  he  thinks  it  probable 
we  had  never  before  investigated.  If  he  really  has  any  ex- 
pectation that  we  will  do  so,  painful  as  may  be  the  task,  we 
must,  nevertheless,  dispel  the  delusion.  He  is  reckoning 
without  his  host,  and  the  calculation  is  entirely  false. 

His  address  to  antipedobaptists  in  pedobaptist  churches, 
we  hope  will  not  be  lost  upon  them — if  there  be  any  to  profit 
by  it.  We  do  not  happen  to  know  any  such.  They  will  not 
feel  much  complimented  by  the  charge  of  cowardice,  hypo- 
crisy, and  pride,  so  liberally  preferred  against  them. 

With  the  congratulations  offered  to  his  "beloved  Baptist 
brethren,"  we  have  nothing  to  do — it  is  a  family  affair.  It 
might  be  as  well,  however,  to  keep  such  matters  within  "the 
denomination."  If  they  are  so  ignorant  and  impressible  as 
to  be  bamboozled  into  the  notion  that  multiplied  thousands 
>f  "Baptists"  have  gone  to  the  gibbet  and  the  stake,  on  ae« 


DR.  HOWELL' S  EVILS  OF  INFANT  BAPTISM.  219 


count  of  antipedobaptist  principles,  and  that  those  principle! 
have  been  practised  and  defended  by  their  "  fathers/7  in  everv 
age  of  the  church,  it  seems  cruel  to  deprive  them  of  the  com 
fort  such  hallowed  reminiscences  afford.  This  may  be  con 
sidered  a  case  coming  within  the  range  of  the  poetic  maxim : 
"Where  ignorance  is  bliss,  'tis  folly  to  be  wise."  We  will 
not,  therefore,  disturb  them  with  a  single  doubt  concerning 
the  uninterruptedness  and  apostolicity  of  their  succession. 
Meanwhile,  wre  know  that  it  is  as  sheer  a  fable  as  the  popish 
prelatical  succession,  while  it  is  a  hundred-fold  more  con- 
temptible, and  has  not  a  thousandth  part  as  much  apparent 
evidence  to  sustain  it. 

And  here  we  take  leave  of  Dr.  Howell,  with  whom  we 
should  not  have  become  so  intimate,  had  we  not  been  re- 
quested to  pay  him  some  attention,  in  view  of  the  respectable 
denominational  endorsement  which  he  has  procured  for  his 
modest  and  unassuming  volume. 


220  CLASSICAL  AND  SCRIPTURAL  USE 


CLASSICAL  AND  SCRIPTURAL  USE  OF 
BAPTISMAL  TERMS. 


Bantco. 

Hesychius,  who  lived  in  the  fourth  century,  and  is  the 
oldest  native  Greek  lexicographer,  gives  avtxsu,  antleo,  as  a 
meaning  of  bapto.  Antleo  means  to  draw,  to  pump,  to  shed 
or  spill. 

Gases,  another  native  Greek  lexicographer  of  high  repute, 
in  the  beginning  of  the  present  century,  gives  the  following 
definitions : — j3ps#o,  breclio,  to  wet,  moisten,  bedew :  to  steep, 
drench:  to  rain,  drop:  to  soak,  suck,  imbibe — rt^ww,  to 
wash — ys[u£u,  gemizo,  to  fill,  to  load — jSv9t^co}  buihizo,  to 
plunge,  dip,  immerge:  to  sink,  drown — wflJa,  antleo,  to 
draw,  pump :  to  shed,  spill. 

Schrevellius  defines  it  mergo,  to  put  under  water,  dip, 
plunge,  sink,  immerse,  overwhelm:  to  immerse  one's  self: 
to  be  drowned — intingo,  to  dip  in,  wet,  moisten — lavo,  to 
wash,  bathe,  moisten,  besprinkle,  bedew — haurio,  to  draw,  or 
draw  forth,  as  water  from  a  well — Jiauriendo  impleo,  to  fill, 
by  drawing,  draining,  drinking,  etc.—pereo,  to  perish,  be 
lost,  as  a  ship  at  sea. 

Scapula  makes  it  mean  to  immerse,  to  plunge,  to  stain  or 
dye,  to  wash. 

Ursinus  renders  it  to  dip,  to  dye,  to  wash,  to  sprinkle. 

Groves,  following  the  foregoing,  defines  it  to  dip,  plunge, 
immerse:  to  wash:  to  wet,  moisten,  sprinkle:  to  steep, 
imbue :  to  dye,  stain,  color. 


OF  BAPTISMAL  TERMS. 


221 


Lexical  authorities  of  this  purport,  might  be  readily  mul- 
tiplied, but  this  is  not  necessary. 

The  classical  citations  relied  on  by  these  lexicographers, 
in  support  of  the  various  meanings  assigned  to  bapto,  are 
numerous.    "We  give  a  sample. 

Homer,  in  his  Battle  of  the  Frogs  and  Mice,  says  the  frog 
*  fell  breathless,  and  the  lake  was  tinged,  or  dyed  with 
purple  blood" — EfidrtTfs'to  5'  oX{mxt!i  XtfivTj  rtoptyvpsci. 

Aristophanes,  (Hipp,  lib.  i.,)  speaks  of  a  comedian  who 
painted  or  dyed,  ^o,7tt6^vo^  his  face  with  tawny  colors. 

Aristotle  (de  Anim.)  speaks  of  a  certain  substance  which, 
"  being  rubbed  or  squeezed,  stains,  pdfttet,  the  hand." 

Other  authors,  in  like  manner,  use  the  word  in  reference 
to  dyeing  the  hair  of  the  head.  In  none  of  those  cases  was 
the  object  dipped  into  the  coloring  fluid,  but  the  latter  was 
applied  to  the  former. 

So  pregnant  are  these  proofs,  that  Dr.  Carson,  a  great 
immersionist,  is  obliged  to  admit  that  bapto  has  other  mean- 
ings, and  literal  meanings,  too,  beside  that  of  plunging, 
which  some  have  the  temerity  to  say  is  its  only  meaning 
This  learned  writer  says:  "Hippocrates  used  bapto  to  denote 
dyeing,  by  dropping  the  dyeing  liquid  on  the  thing  dyed. 
When  it  drops  upon  the  garments,  baptetai,  they  are  dyed. 
This  surely  is  not  dyeing  by  dipping.  Nearchus  relates  that 
the  Indians  dye,  baptontai,  their  beards."  "  Bapto"  he  says, 
"signifies  to  dye  by  sprinkling  as  properly  as  by  dipping, 
though  originally  it  was  confined  to  the  latter.  Nor  are  such 
applications  of  the  word  to  be  accounted  for  by  metaphor,  as 
Dr.  Gale  asserts.  They  are  as  literal  as  the  primary  mean- 
ing. It  is  by  extension  of  the  literal  meaning,  and  not  by 
figure  of  any  kind,  that  words  come  to  depart  so  far  from 
their  original  signification." 

Bapto  occurs  in  the  following  places  in  the  Septuagint: — 
Exod.  xii.  22  ;  Lev.  iv.  6,  17  ;  ix.  9 ;  xi.  32 ;  xiv.  6,  16,  51 ; 
Num.  xix.  18  ;  Deut.  xxxiii.  24;  Josh.  iii.  15  ;  Ruth  ii.  14; 
1  Sam.  xiv.  27  ;  2  Kings  viii.  15  ;  Job  ix.  31 ;  Ps.  lxviii.  23 ; 
Ezek.  xxiii.  15  ;  Dan.  iv.  30 ;  v.  21. 

In  the  New  Testament  it  is  found  in  Matt.  xxvi.  23 ; 
Mark  xiv.  20;  Luke  xvi.  24;  John  xiii.  26;  Rev.  xix.  13. 

It  has  frequently  been  shown  that  bapto,  in  many  of  the 


222  CLASSICAL  AND  SCRIPTURAL  USE 


foregoing  passages,  as  a  rendering  of  the  Hebrew  total,  can* 
not  mean  to  plunge  the  subject  all  over  in  the  element — that 
sometimes  it  denotes  only  a  partial  immersion,  as  in  the  case 
of  the  bunch  of  hyssop,  the  end  of  which  only  was  dipped  in 
the  blood  in  the  basin — the  finger  of  the  priest,  which  was 
dipped  in  the  oil  in  his  left  hand — and  the  living  bird,  cedar 
wood,  scarlet,  and  hyssop,  all  of  which  were  dipped  in  the 
blood  of  the  slain  bird — of  course,  only  very  partially  wet 
with  it.  In  Ezekiel,  it  means  simply  dyed,  without  any 
reference  to  mode,  and  is  so  rendered  by  our  translators ; 
and  in  Daniel,  it  means  sprinkled,  or  ivet,  as  it  is  rendered  in 
the  common  version. 

But  we  lay  little  stress  on  the  preceding  testimonies — 
profane  or  sacred — as  the  word  hajpto  is  never  used  of  the 
Christian  ordinance. 


Gases,  in  his  Lexicon,  gives  the  following  as  the  meaning 
of  j3a7ti't£co: — J3p«£«,  brecho,  to  wet,  moisten,  bedew:  to  steep, 
to  drench:  to  rain,  drop:  to  soak,  suck,  imbibe — tCKvvch, 
pluno,  to  wash — %ovu>9  louo,  to  wash,  bathe — avrte'co,  antleo, 
to  draw,  pump :  to  shed,  spill. 

Suidas,  in  the  tenth  century,  renders  to  sink,  plunge, 
immerse,  wet,  wash,  cleanse,  purify. 

Schrevellius  renders  by  mergo,  to  put  under  water,  dip, 
plunge,  sink,  immerse,  overwhelm:  to  immerse  one's  self: 
to  be  drowned — ablno,  to  wash,  to  wash  off,  to  make  clean, 
to  purify — lavo,  to  wash,  bathe,  moisten,  besprinkle,  bedew. 

Stephanus  renders,  to  dip,  immerse,  to  merge,  submerge,  to 
cover  with  water,  to  cleanse,  to  wash. 

Scapula:  to  dip,  immerse,  dye:  to  plunge,  submerge,  cover 
with  water :  to  cleanse,  wash. 

Hedericus :  to  dip,  immerse :  to  cover  with  water :  to 
cleanse,  wash. 

Schleusner :  to  plunge,  immerse :  to  cleanse,  wash,  purify 
with  water. 

AVahl:  to  wash,  perform  ablutions,  cleanse:  secondly,  to 
Immerse. 


OF  BAPTISMAL  TERMS. 


223 


Bretschneider  says  it  means  often  to  dip,  and  often  to 
wash  or  cleanse. 

Groves  gives  these  meanings:  to  dip,  immerse,  immerge, 
plunge:  to  wash,  cleanse,  purify:  to  baptize:  to  depress, 
humble,  overwhelm. 

But  we  are  performing  a  work  of  supererogation  in  citing 
these  lexical  authorities  for  the  various  meanings  of  this 
word.  Dr.  Carson,  whose  "  position  is,  that  it  always  signi- 
fies to  dip,  never  expressing  any  thing  but  mode,"  acknow- 
ledges, "I  have  all  the  lexicographers  and  commentators 
against  me  in  this  opinion."  Prima  facie  evidence,  on  such 
a  question  as  this,  that  he  was  wrong  in  his  opinion  and 
fatuous  in  trying  to  maintain  it. 

Ihe  classical  authorities  cited  in  support  of  these  various 
meanings  are  numerous:  we  give  a  few  examples. 

Aristotle  speaks  of  uninhabited  lands,  which  at  low  water 
are  not  baptized,  that  is,  not  overflowed.  Strabo  uses  the 
word  in  a  similar  association. 

Plutarch  speaks  of  Otho's  being  baptized  with  debts — that 
is  overwhelmed  with  them.  So  Plato:  "They  do  not  baptize 
the  common  people  with  taxes" — that  is,  they  do  not  lay 
heavy  taxes  upon  them.  So  Diodorus  Siculus:  "To  baptize, 
or  burden,  the  people  with  taxes."  Josephus  speaks  of  the 
city  being  baptized  by  the  robbers — that  is,  overwhelmed  by 
them  with  calamities. 

Hippocrates  speaks  of  baptizing  a  blister  plaster  with 
breast  milk — of  course,  by  pouring  it  on  or  moistening  it 
thereby. 

Greek  writers  also  frequently  speak  of  being  baptized  with 
wine,  that  is,  filled  with  it — with  intemperance,  or  with 
sleep,  that  is,  oppressed  by  it — and  they  use  the  word  in 
other  associations,  which,  like  the  foregoing,  imply  the  appli- 
cation of  the  element  to  the  subject  and  not  the  subject  to 
the  element.  In  this  way  it  is  used  in  the  only  two  places 
in  which  it  occurs  in  the  Apocrypha.  Ecclus.  xxxiv.  25 ; 
Judith  xii.  7. 

It  is,  however,  of  but  little  moment,  with  what  restriction 
or  extension  of  import  the  term  is  employed  by  profane 
writers,  when  we  know  that  the  inspired  writers  use  it  in 
the  sense  of  washing  or  cleansing,  without  any  reference  to 


224 


CLASSICAL,  AND  SCRIPTURAL  USE 


mode.  The  connection  of  the  several  places  where  it  is  used 
m  the  sacred  volume,  shows,  indeed,  that  the  purifications 
spoken  of  by  this  term  were  in  no  ease  effected  by  plunging, 
but  in  every  instance  by  affusion;  but  the  term  itself  ex- 
presses the  idea  of  purification,  and  not  the  mode  by  which 
it  is  effected. 

The  word  baptizo  occurs  in  the  following  places  of  Scrip- 
ture:— 

In  the  Septuagint:  2  Kings  v.  14;  Isa.  xxi.  4. 

In  the  New  Testament:  Matt.  iii.  6,  11,  13,  14,  16  ;  xx.  22, 
23;  xxviii.  19;  Mark  i.  4,  5,  8,  9;  vi.  14;  vii.  4;  x.  38,  39; 
xvi.  16;  Luke  iii.  7,  12,  16,  21;  vii.  29,  30;  xi.  38;  xii.  50; 
John  i.  25,  26,  28,  31,  33;  iii.  22,  23,  26;  iv.  1,  2;  x.  40; 
Acts  i.  5;  ii.  38,  41;  viii.  12,  13,  16,  36,  38;  ix.  18;  x.  47, 
48;  xi.  16;  xvi.  15,  33;  xviii.  8;  xix.  3,  4,  5;  xxii.  16;  Rom. 
vi.  3;  1  Cor.  i.  13,  14,  15,  16,  17;  x.  2;  xii.  13;  xv.  29;  Gal. 
iii.  27. 

In  2  Kings  v.  14,  our  translators  render  the  word  "dipped;" 
but  as  the  action  expressed  by  tahal,  baptizo,  in  the  14th  verse, 
is  what  Elisha  commanded  in  the  10th  verse,  by  the  use  of  the 
Hebrew  rahats,  fcwco,  to  wash,  "Go  and  wash  in  Jordan  seven 
times — and  thou  shalt  be  clean"  there  is  no  necessity  of  sup- 
posing thatNaaman  plunged  himself  into  the  river,  but,  rather, 
made  a  sevenfold  application  of  the  water  to  his  person ;  and  so 
Jerome  understood  the  text,  rendering  it,  "lavit  in  Jordane." 

In  the  other  passage,  Isa.  xxi.  4,  the  LXX  use  the  word 
in  a  metaphorical  sense — "fearfulness  baptized  me;"  but 
this  excludes  the  notion  of  plunging  and  implies  a  copious 
pouring  or  overwhelming — which,  in  the  case  of  water,  would 
be  the  application  of  the  element  to  the  subject,  not  the 
subject  to  the  element. 

So  Mark  x.  38,  39  and  Luke  xii.  50:  if  the  baptism  here 
spoken  of  refers  to  the  Saviour's  martyrdom,  it  means  that  he 
was  to  be  overwhelmed  with  sufferings,  or  rather,  sprinkled 
with  his  own  blood.  This  the  fathers  call,  baptisma  san- 
guinis, a  baptism  of  blood. 

A  similar  construction  is  given,  by  some,  to  that  famous 
passage,  1  Cor.  xv.  29;  "Else  what  shall  they  do  which  are 
baptized  for  the  dead,  if  the  dead  rise  not  at  all?  why  are 
they  then  baptized  for  the  dead?"    This  text,  however,  can- 


OF  BAPTISMAL  TEEMS. 


225 


not  be  used  in  controversy,  because  of  its  obscurity.  As  a 
matter  of  curiosity,  we  give  some  of  the  interpretations  which 
have  been  placed  upon  it.  | 

1.  Tertullian  thinks  St.  Paul  alludes  to  vicarious  baptisms^ 
such  as  obtained  among  the  Marcionites,  who,  when  any  one 
died  unbaptized,  put  the  dead  body  under  the  bed,  and  a 
living  man  in  the  bed  to  personate  the  deceased,  by  giving 
the  baptismal  responses  and  receiving  the  ordinance  on  his 
behalf. — A  preposterous  conceit! 

2.  Some  of  the  papists  pretend  it  teaches  purgatory.  Thus 
Bellarmine  says  no  other  text  is  needed,  as  this  clearly  esta- 
blishes the  doctrine.  He  interprets  baptism  in  this  place,  as 
the  voluntary  endurance  of  afflictions  or  penances,  by  somo 
men  on  earth  for  others  in  purgatory ! 

3.  Charles  Taylor  suggests  that  the  text  alludes  to  the 
Jewish  purification  after  pollution  by  the  touch  of  a  dead 
body,  presuming  that  the  Jews  attached  to  this  baptism  "the 
idea  of  an  illustration  of  the  national  hope  of  a  resurrection.'" 
Rather  a  violent  presumption. 

4.  Some  consider  the  baptism  a  washing  of  the  corpse  in 
jrder  to  burial.  As  if  the  apostle  had  said:  "If  the  dead 
rise  not,  why  wash  them?  Do  men  give  respect  where  there 
is  no  hope?" 

5.  Gerdesius  makes  the  apostle  argue:  if  you  deny  a 
resurrection  of  the  dead,  then  baptism  itself  must  be  a  bap- 
tism of  those  who  are  never  to  have  a  resurrection — an 
ordinance  for  the  dead. 

6.  Aquinas  makes  the  baptism  literal,  but  "the  dead"  he 
considers  figurative.  The  mortui,  tw  vsxpuv,  are  peccata, 
sins,  dead  works,  for  the  removal  of  which  we  are  baptized. 

7.  Luther,  Melancthon,  Piscator,  and  Beza  translate  super 
mortuos,  "upon  the  dead,"  and  say  that  the  parties  baptized 
received  baptism  upon  the  graves  of  other  Christians,  in  that 
act  professing  their  faith  in  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  there 
buried. 

8.  Theodoret  interprets  "  for  the  dead,"  for  Christy  and 
makes  the  baptism  a  representation  of  the  death  and  resur- 
rection of  Christ.  Why  set  forth  his  resurrection,  if  being 
dead  he  riseth  no  more,  death  having  eternal  dominion  over 
bim? 

10* 


226  CLASSICAL  AND  SCRIPTURAL  USE 


9.  Others  render,  "for  the  dead  man,"  namely,  Jesus 
Why  are  they  baptized  for  him,  if  he  is  dead  and  will  con- 
tinue dead  for  ever  ?  What  have  they  to  expect  from  one 
•who  is  never  more  to  have  an  existence? 

10.  Cajetan  says  they  who  are  baptized  for  the  dead,  are 
buried  under  the  water,  buried  for  the  dead,  as  dead  in  Christ 
— and  in  that  they  profess  themselves  dead  to  the  world  in  bap- 
tism, that  they  may  rise  to  a  newness  of  life,  they  by  that 
baptism  profess  the  resurrection  of  the  dead. 

11.  Epiphanius,  Calvin,  and  others,  think  St.  Paul  refers 
to  clinical  baptism,  when  the  subjects  were  baptized,  pro  mor- 
tuis,  "  for  dead/'  as  the  old  English  translation  has  it — that 
is,  pro  derelictis,  when  they  were  as  good  as  dead — in  articulo 
mortis. 

12.  Estius  also  thinks  there  is  a  reference  to  death-bed 
baptisms,  but  interprets  pro  mortuis,  by  pro  statu  mortuorum, 
"for  the  state  of  the  dead."  If  men  are  thus  baptized  for 
the  dead,  does  not  this  imply  a  hope  of  the  resurrection  ? 

13.  Wesley  says,  modestly:  "Perhaps  baptized  in  hope  of 
blessings  to  be  received  after  they  are  numbered  with  the 
dead."  He  adds,  "or  baptized  in  the  room  of  the  dead," 
according  to  the  interpretation  of  Le  Clerc  and  others. 

14.  Le  Clerc,  Doddridge,  Junius,  Doderlein,  Newcome,  and 
others,  translate,  "  baptized  in  room  of  the  dead,"  referring 
to  Dionysius  Halicarnassus :  "  They  decreed  to  enlist  other 
soldiers,  in  place  of  those  who  had  died  in  the  war."  So  the 
parties  in  question  were  baptized  and  admitted  into  the  ranks 
of  the  militant  church,  in  the  room  of  those  who  fell  in  the 
persecution. 

15.  Maldonat  considers  the  baptism  metaphorical,  to  wit, 
martyrdom — suffered  for  the  testimony  of  the  resurrection  of 
the  dead. 

16.  Macknight  considers  the  baptism  metaphorical,  to  wit, 
sufferings,  and  supposes  that  there  is  an  ellipsis  of  the  resur- 
rection :  "  What  inducement  can  they  have  to  suffer  death 
for  believing  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  V'  This  differs  but 
little  from  Maldonat's  interpretation. 

17.  Chrysostom,  Theophylact,  Hammond,  Bloomfield,  and 
others,  consider  the  baptism  literal,  and  suppose  there  is  an 
ellipsis  of  the  resurrection.    They  think  there  is  a  referenco 


OP  BAPTISMAL  TERMS. 


227 


to  those  articles  of  the  Creed  rehearsed  at  baptism — ;'the 
resurrection  of  the  body  and  the  life  everlasting" — q.  d. : 
"  "What  will  they  benefit  themselves,  who  are  baptized  in  hope 
of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  if  the  dead  rise  not  at  all  V> 


BdjvtiGiia. 

The  noun  BdrCTfc^/jLa  occurs  in  Matt.  iii.  7 ;  xx.  22,  23 ; 
xxi.  25  ;  Mark  i.  4 ;  x.  38,  39  ;  xi.  30  ;  Luke  iii.  3  ;  vii.  29  ; 
xii.  50  ;  xx.  4 ;  Acts  i.  22  ;  x.  37  ;  xiii.  24 ;.  xviii.  25  ;  xix.  3,  4; 
Rom.  vi.  4;  Eph.  iv.  5 ;  Col.  ii.  12 ;  1  Pet.  iii.  21. 

The  noun  Barf-nc^io;  occurs  in  Mark  vii.  4,  8  ;  Heb.  vi.  2 ; 
ix.  10. 

The  passage  in  Mark  has  occasioned  considerable  contro- 
versy. Yet  it  seems  easy  enough  of  interpretation — especially 
when  collated  with  John  ii.  6;  iii.  25,  26.  These  texts  in- 
fallibly determine  the  mode  of  those  Jewish  baptisms:  they 
were  purifications  by  pouring  and  affusion — not  by  immer- 
sion. 

The  washing  of  hands  spoken  of  in  the  3d  verse  is  by  nearly 
all  allowed  to  have  been  by  pouring.  There  is,  however, 
some  obscurity  in  the  language,  7ivy^rn  vi^wtai  T?a$  z£tpa>* 

Dr.  Campbell  renders :  "  washed  their  hands  by  pouring  a 
little  water  upon  them" — as  if  pugme  meant  a  handful,  to 
which  he  supplies  v8ato$,  of  water.  But  this,  ingeniously  as 
it  is  defended,  is  more  like  making  Scripture  than  translating 
it. 

The  common  version  renders,  "  wash  their  hands  oft,"  fol- 
lowing the  Vulgate  and  some  other  Latin  versions,  which 
read  "  crebrb  laverint  manus."  To  the  same  effect  is  Castalio, 
who  has  scepe  instead  of  crebrb.  It  is  supposed  they  read 
rtvxvyj,  wThich  might  be  taken  for  7tvxv&,  and  that  for  7tvxvu$. 
But,  as  has  been  observed,  there  is  no  proof  that  there  is  such 
a  word  as  ^vxw,  and  if  there  were,  it  is  not  found  in  any 
copy  of  Mark,  and  is  not  at  all  apposite. 


228  CLASSICAL  AND  SCRIPTURAL  USE 


The  first  Syriac  translators  render  it  by  a  word  denoting 
"  carefully,"  or  "  diligently,"  which  rendering  our  translators 
put  in  the  margin.  This  suits  the  place,  but  is  no  translation 
of  the  word. 

Theophylact  renders  "  up  to  the  elbow."  But  if  the  word 
can  be  proved  to  mean  elbow,  still  "  up  to"  in  the  dative  is 
not  tolerated  by  the  critics. 

Lightfoot,  followed  by  many  others,  renders  "up  to  the 
wrist" — that  is,  as  far  as  the  fist  extends.  He  quotes  the 
Kabbins,  who  say  that  "  the  hands  were  to  be  washed  to  the 
break  or  joint."  But  there  is  the  grammatical  objection  to 
putting  "  up  to"  in  the  dative. 

But  as  the  word  itvy^  means  the  fist,  the  dative  rtvy/^jj, 
must  mean,  "with  the  fist" — as  it  is  also  in  the  margin  of 
the  common  version.  So  Beza  and  others:  "unless  they 
have  first  washed  their  hands  with  the  fist,"  "which  expla- 
nation," says  Bloomfield,  "is  confirmed  by  the  customs  of 
the  Jews,  as  preserved  in  the  Rabbinical  writings,  and  even 
yet  in  use."  The  dative,  says  Parkhurst,  is  used  adverbially 
— "  to  wash  the  hands  with  the  fist — i.  e.,  by  rubbing  water 
on  the  palm  of  one  hand  with  the  doubled  fist  of  the  other." 
This  sense  is  easy  and  apposite.  The  washing  could  be  ef- 
fected in  a  basin,  or  by  having  water  poured  upon  the  hands 
by  an  attendant — the  Jewish  mode  of  ablution,  indicated,  as 
we  have  elsewhere  stated,  by  the  word  vi-^wtai. 

Some  consider  vi-^wtai  generic  to  part? law? at, — the  former 
meaning  generally  to  wash:  the  latter  to  wash  by  dipping. 
Campbell  accordingly  thinks  that  the  Jews  washed  their 
hands  by  pouring  before  meals,  except  when  they  came  from 
market,  when  they  washed  them  by  dipping. 

But,  as  Bloomfield  observes,  "This  is  best  explained,  *  un- 
less they  wash  their  bodies/  (in  opposition  to  the  hands 
before  mentioned,)  in  which,  however,  is  not  implied  im- 
mersion, which  was  never  used,  except  when  some  actual, 
and  not  possible  pollution,  had  been  incurred."  This  dis- 
poses of  Campbell's  difficulty  arising  from  the  mention  of 
washing  before  eating,  after  coming  from  market,  when  they 
never  ate  without  washing. 

Instead  of  considering  vl^wtai  generic  to  jSarttfJtfcoi/T'ax,  we 
should  rather  consider  the  latter  generic  to  the  former.  Both 


OF  BAPTISMAL  TERMS. 


229 


mean  to  wash,  but  nipsontai  alone  defines  the  mode  namely, 
by  affusion. 

They  could  baptize  in  no  other  way  in  the  use  of  the 
vessels  which  they  kept  for  these  purifications.  And 
it  is  remarkable  that  Campbell,  after  rendering  the  vdb 
Qarttlctcovtcu,  "  dipping  them,"  that  is,  the  hands,  renders  the 
noun  jSartT'Ktyioijs  in  the  fourth  and  eighth  verses,  baptisms* 
assigning  as  reasons: — 

"First,  It  is  not  an  ordinary  washing,  for  the  s;ike  of 
cleanliness,  which  a  man  may  perform  in  any  way  he  thinks 
convenient,  that  is  here  meant;  but  it  is  a  religious  ceremony, 
practised  in  consequence  of  a  sacred  obligation,  real  or 
imagined.  Secondly,  The  analogy  that  subsists  in  phra- 
seology between  the  rites  of  the  old  dispensation  and  those 
of  the  new,  ought,  in  my  opinion,  to  be  more  clearly  ex- 
hibited in  translations  of  Scripture  than  they  generally  are. 
It  is  evident,  that  first  John's  baptism,  and  afterwards  the 
Christian,  though  of  a  more  spiritual  nature,  and  directed  to 
a  more  sublime  end,  originated  in  the  usages  that  had  long 
obtained  among  the  Jews." 

A  very  just  remark.    He  adds: — 

"I  am  not  for  multiplying  technical  terms,  and  therefore 
should  not  blame  a  translation  wherein  the  words  baptize, 
baptism,  and  others  of  the  same  stamp,  were  not  used,  if  in 
their  stead  we  had  words  of  our  own  growth  of  the  same 
import." 

If  we  had — that  is  tantamount  to  saying,  we  have  not. 
Nor  have  we.  Nor  has  the  Latin — hence  Jerome  transferred 
the  Greek  words,  and  in  this  respect  and  for  the  same  reason, 
he  has  been  imitated  by  our  translators  (except  when  the 
Jewish  baptisms  are  spoken  of)  and  by  those  who  have 
translated  the  Bible  into  a  hundred  other  tongues. 

Campbell  pleads  for  uniformity  in  admitting  or  rejecting 
the  original  words,  and  yet  he  is  not  uniform  himself  in  this 
matter,  for  which  he  gives  a  lame  apology.    He  says: — 

"If  it  be  asked,  why  I  have  not  then  rendered  jSartfttfwj'Tu*. 
in  the  preceding  clause,  baptize?  I  answer,  1st,  That  the 
appellation,  baptisms,  here  given  to  such  washings,  fully 
answers  the  purpose;  and,  2dly,  That  the  way  I  have 
rendered  that  word  shows  better  the  import  of  the  contrast 


230  CLASSICAL  AND  SCRIPTURAL  USE 


oetween  it  and  vC^wtai,  so  manifestly  intended  by  the 
evangelist." 

Now,  instead  of  manifestly  intending  a  contrast  between 
those  words,  we  believe  he  used  them  as  interchangeable 
terms,  so  far  as  the  action  of  purification  is  concerned.  For 
that  the  action  expressed  by  the  latter  word  was  that  of  a 
Jewish  baptism,  we  have  the  testimony  of  another  evangelist: 
"And  as  he  spake,  a  certain  Pharisee  besought  him  to  dine 
with  him ;  and  he  went  in  and  sat  down  to  meat.  And  when 
the  Pharisee  saw  it,  he  marvelled  that  he  had  not  first  washed 
before  dinner."  Luke  si.  37,  38.  Christ  had  not  come  from 
the  market,  hence  nothing  but  the  washing  of  hands,  ex- 
pressed in  Mark  by  nipsontai,  was  proper,  according  to  the 
Jewish  custom ;  yet  the  Pharisee  marvelled  that  he  did  not 
baptize  himself  before  dinner. 

Campbell  renders  this  place  in  Luke,  "used  no  washing;" 
but  why  did  he  not  render  ifiart-tLctQrj  dipped,  so  as  to  observe 
uniformity,  as  he  renders  part'tiGwta'^  dipping,  in  Mark? 
Obviously,  because  the  action  expressed  by  baptizo  in  Luke 
was  the  same  expressed  in  Mark  by  nipto,  which  he  renders 
to  wash,  and  that  "by  pouring.11  He  knew  too  that  the 
Jews  did  not  immerse  tfiemselves  before  dinner:  it  never 
was  their  custom;  nor  did  they,  nor  could  they,  immerse 
their  couches  and  tables  every  time  they  ate.  And  for  this 
reason  more  than  for  any  other,  we  suspect,  Campbell,  after 
translating  the  baptismal  verb,  "dipping,"  transfers  the  bap- 
tismal noun,  in  the  next  verse,  as  he  could  not  commit  so 
gross  an  outrage  on  common  sense,  as  to  make  the  Jews 
immerse  their  couches  before  reclining  on  them  at  meals. 
He  could  manufacture  Scripture  enough,  without  committing 
any  great  absurdity,  to  make  them  dip  their  hands,  after 
coming  from  market;  but  he  could  not  go  so  far  as  to  make 
them  dip  their  bodies  or  their  couches  on  all  occasions  before 
meals:  hence  in  Luke,  he  speaks  of  "using  washing,"  and 
in  M»~k,  the  "baptisms  of  cups,  and  pots,  and  brazen  vessels, 
and  beds." 

"We  are  thus  forced  to  the  conclusion  that  these  baptisms 
were  washings  or  purifications  by  water,  poured  or  sprinkled 
on  the  hands,  or  entire  persons,  or  on  the  furniture,  for 
which  ceremonial  purposes  vessels  of  water,  containing  two 


OF  BAPTISMAL  TERMS. 


231 


Gr  three  firkins  apiece,  were  kept  in  the  house,  as  St.  John 
expresses  it — "after  the  manner  of  the  purifying  of  the 
Jews."  And  yet  some  talk  about  their  effecting  this  "purify- 
ing" by  plunging — the  word  baptismos  meaning  nothing 
else — as  if  men,  women,  and  children,  cups,  pots,  brazen 
vessels,  and  beds,  were,  or  could  be,  plunged  into  these 
waterpots! 

Bant to 'trig . 

The  noun  Partttat^  is  used  only  as  the  agnomen,  or  sur- 
name, of  John,  the  forerunner  of  Christ:  it  occurs  in  Matt, 
iii.  1;  xi.  11;  xiv.  2,  8;  xvi.  14;  xvii.  13;  Mark  vi.  24,  25, 
viii.  28  >  Luke  vii.  20,  28,  33;  ix.  19. 


Olxog  and  Otxia. 

We  have  had  occasion  to  note  the  difference  between  oixo$, 
a  family  and  owaa,  a  household,  and  its  important  bearing 
on  the  subject  of  Infant  Baptism.  The  following  ingenious 
and  learned  observations  on  the  meaning  of  those  terms  are 
from  Taylor's  unanswered  and  unanswerable  work  on  Apos- 
tolic Baptism, 

The  Greek  term  for  house,  oixo$,  corresponds  exactly  with 
our  usage  of  the  English  word ;  and  the  distinctions  are  uni- 
formly preserved  throughout  Scripture,  without  any  instance 
of  confusion  or  interchange.  As  applied  to  persons,  this 
Greek  term  signifies  a  continued  descending  line  of  many 
generations.  So  we  have  the  house  of  Israel,  and  house  of 
David,  the  nearest  line  of  consanguinity  that  can  be  drawn 
to  Israel,  to  David,  through  any  indefinite  number  of  gene- 
rations. It  signifies  also  sl  family  living  at  the  same  time, 
and  usually  under  one  roof,  contemporaries.  With  the  addi- 
tion of  a  syllable,  oiki-AS,  oixc-AX,  it  changes  its  application, 
and  imports  the  attendants  on  a  family,  the  servants  of  various 
kinds,  or  the  house-HOLV — whoever  holds  to  the  house.  Mar- 
riage or  adoption  might  engraft  a  member  of  the  house-7icW 


232  CLASSICAL  AND  SCRIPTURAL  USE 


into  the  family ;  yet  that  is  not  according  to  the  appointment 
of  nature,  but  is  an  arbitrary  convention  of  civil  society. 

The  term  house,  in  the  sense  of  a  building  or  as  signifying 
a  series  of  descending  generations,  can  have  no  connection 
with  the  subject  of  baptism  of  persons.  Neither  has  the 
term  house-B.OLD  any  immediate  connection  with  this  subject, 
Scripture  affording  no  instance  of  a  house-H.OLT>  being  bap- 
tized, as  such;  though  individuals  comprised  in  it  might  be. 
Wo  are  therefore  restricted  to  the  consideration  of  the  term 
house  in  the  sense  of  family;  and  it  corresponds  perfectly 
with  our  English  term.  Had  it  been  rendered  family  at  first, 
no  error  could  have  arisen  on  the  subject  of  baptism.  There 
can  be  no  family  without  children.  A  man  and  his  wife  are 
not  a  family.  When  a  young  woman  is  advanced  in  preg- 
nancy, she  is  "  in  the  family  way  f — when  her  child  is  born, 
she  has  &  family;  yet  this  term  is  seldom  used  absolutely, 
unless  three  or  four  children  or  more  compose  the  family. 
A  widow  with  six  or  eight  children  is  left  with  a  large  family  : 
and  speaking  of  them,  we  ask,  "  whether  the  whole  family  be 
well?"- — whether  all  be  at  home?* 

The  same  precisely  is  the  application  of  the  Greek  term 
oixo$,  oikos,  in  the  New  Testament.  I  know  no  instance  in 
which  it  imports  a  married  pair  not  having  children ;  or  the 
parents  distinct  from  their  children  ;  but  in  several  instances 
it  imports  children  distinct  from  their  parents.  For  the 
Apostle  Paul  baptized  the  family  of  Stephanas ;  but  he  did 
not  baptize  Stephanas  himself;  and  he  salutes  the  family  of 
Onesiphorus  himself,  who  was  probably  absent  from  them  , 
or  he  might  have  been  dead,  leaving  an  unsettled  family  be- 
hind him. 

Scripture  always  employs  this  term  oixo$,  oikos,  family,  to 
import  the  nearest  degree  of  kindred,  by  consanguinity  gene- 
rally, yet  not  excluding  marriage  ;  and  by  descent  generally , 
yet  in  one  instance  by  ascent  of  parentage :  never  varying  how- 
ever from  the  notion  of  the  nearest  possible  degree  of  kindred. 


*  This  is  so  obviously  the  meaning  of  the  word  family,  that  even  an 
antipedobaptist  sings : 


"Millions  of  infant  souls  compose 
The  family  above." 


OF  BAPTISMAL  TERMS. 


233 


It  excludes  servants  or  the  ffouse-noLV.  An  unimpeach- 
able instance  of  this  presents  itself  in  the  allusion  to  Noah, 
Heb.  xi.  7,  who  was  saved  by  means  of  the  ark,  with  his 
family.  The  Apostle  Peter  assures  us,  1  Peter  iii.  20,  that 
only  eight  persons  were  saved  in  the  ark,  Noah  with  his 
wife,  and  his  three  sons  with  their  wives :  it  follows  that  no 
part  of  his  household  is  included  in  the  term  "  family,"  used 
by  the  writer  to  the  Hebrews.  The  children  of  Noah  saved 
with  him  in  the  ark,  were  certainly  adults,  for  chronologers 
allow  the  youngest  of  them  a  hundred  years  of  age.  I  pro- 
ceed therefore  to  show,  that  this  term  family  denotes  not  only 
minors,  but  children  in  the  youngest  possible  state  of  life. 

The  apostle,  describing  the  qualifications  for  a  Christian 
bishop,  1  Tim.  iii.  4,  insists  that  he  should  be  "one  who 
ruleth  well  his  own  family,  having  his  children  in  subjection 
with  all  gravity — for  if  a  man  know  not  how  to  rale  his  own 
family,  how  shall  he  take  care  of  the  church  of  God  V  Here 
it  is  evident,  the  children  are  the  family,  in  a  state  of  pupil- 
age, and  youth,  which  requires  ruling  and  guidance  by  their 
father. 

In  1  Tim.  iii.  12,  we  find  a  precept  which  directs  that  a 
deacon  be  the  husband  of  one  wife,  ruling  well  his  children, 
even  his  own  family — his  issue.  Lest  this  should  admit  the 
possibility  of  equivocation,  the  apostle  marks  the  family  as 
his  own.  Nothing  can  be  more  a  man's  own  than  his  chil- 
dren ;  and  the  force  of  the  Greek  term  warrants  any  degree 
of  strength  that  can  be  annexed  to  it.  Therefore,  in  both 
these  places  and  connections,  it  fixes  the  parties  designed  by 
it,  equally  in  reference  to  the  bishop  as  the  deacon,  to  natural 
issue  or  family.  Nor  can  these  children  be  adults,  for  then 
the  term  nded  could  not  be  applied  to  them :  they  must  be 
young  children,  under  their  father's  direction,  subject  to  his 
command  and  obedient  to  his  control — he  is  to  rule  them. 

But  these  children  being  under  the  rule  of  their  father, 
though  still  young,  are  somewhat  advanced  in  life.  In  proof 
that  the  term  family  imports  babes  and  sucklings,  consult  the 
advice  of  the  apostle  to  young  women,  1  Tim.  v.  14:  "I 
would  have  the  young  widows  to  marry,  bear  children,  and 
guide  their  offspring,  oixoSsarto'tew,  oikodespotein,  literally  to  . 
despotise  their  family."    This  order  of  the  words  is  defini- 


234  CLASSICAL  AND  SCRIPTURAL  USE 


*ive :  "  marriage, — child-bearing, — child-despotising"  This 
third  term  must  mark  that  guidance,  care,  and  assiduity  con- 
cerning infant  children,  which  mothers  feel  with  the  most 
lively  anxiety.  Who  interferes  with  a  mother's  solicitude 
for  her  infant  ? — the  father  may  sympathize  with  it  when  in- 
disposed :  he  may  express  his  fondness  when  it  is  in  health ; 
but  it  is  the  mother  who  must  despotise  it,  govern  it,  direct 
all  its  motions  and  watch  all  its  ways.  This  is  the  appoint- 
ment of  God  in  his  providence.  These  could  not  be  foster 
children,  for  the  apostle  speaks  of  child-bearing ;  nor  could 
they  be  adults,  for  then,  neither  could  their  mother  despotise 
them ;  nor  could  she  be  young  if  her  children  were  of  mature 
age.  Observe  also  the  change  of  term.  The  father,  bishop, 
or  deacon,  was  to  rule  his  family :  the  mother  is  to  despotise 
her  offspring,  her  infant,  with  maternal  solicitude.  The  in- 
fant family  is  of  necessity  attached  to  the  mother ;  and  the 
mother  is  attached  to  the  infant  family,  by  Divine  appoint- 
ment. 

I  demand,  therefore,  valid  reasons  why  the  family  attached 
to  their  mother  Lydia,  Acts  xvi.  15,  was  not  a  young  family. 
Moreover,  seeing  that  daughters  are  always  more  attached 
to  their  mothers  than  sons  are,  and  for  a  longer  term  of 
years,  I  demand  also  valid  reasons  for  denying  that  Lydia's 
family  were  daughters,  in  whole  or  in  part:  since  there  is 
the  greater  chance  that  they  were  daughters,  rather  than 
sons.  Lydia  was  a  native  of  Thyatira,  but  settled  at  Phi- 
lippi.  That  she  was  on  a  visit,  or  on  a  journey  of  traffic, 
does  not  appear.  That  conjecture  is  set  aside  by  the  mention 
of  her  family  and  her  residence,  which  must  have  been  a 
large  house,  to  accommodate  several  lodgers — Paul,  Silas, 
Luke,  etc.;  and  a  congregation  in  addition  to  her  family." 

It  is  said  of  Lydia,  that  "her  heart  was  opened  by  the 
Lord;  and  that  she  attended  to  the  things  spoken  by  Paul:" 
but  nothing  of  this  is  said  of  her  family.  The  baptism  of 
her  family  evidently  accompanied  her  own,  and  is  spoken  of 
as  a  matter  of  course  connected  with  her  own  baptism — 
"And  when  she  was  baptized,  and  her  family." 

There  is  no  salutation  to  any  of  Lydia' s  family  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Philippians: — if  her  family  were  sons  of  mature 
age  and  members  of  the  church,  has  not  this  omission  it* 


OF  BAPTISMAL  TERMS. 


235 


difficulty?  The  fixing  of  the  term  brethren  to  the  family  of 
Lydia,  in  a  restricted  sense,  is  unwarranted  by  the  fair  con- 
struction of  the  passage.  In  the  instance  of  Lydia' s  family, 
the  children  might  be  young;  and  every  thing  leads  to  that 
conclusion;  but  in  a  numerous  family,  the  certainty  that 
some  must  be  young  is  greatly  heightened. 

Scripture  uses  the  word  all  and  whole,  to  import  many- 
numerous.  The  application  of  this  word  to  families  deserves 
notice.  It  imports  many  in  lesser  numbers,  Matt.  xiii.  56: 
"his  mother  Mary,  and  his  brethren  James  and  Joses,  and 
Simon  and  Judas,  and  his  sisters,  are  they  not  all  with  us  ?" 
Admitting  an  equal  number  of  sisters  as  of  brethren,  it 
makes  eight  or  nine  with  the  mother:  a  large  or  numerous 
family. 

The  nobleman  who  came  to  our  Lord  to  beseech  him  to 
cure  his  son,  had  servants  who  met  him;  and,  as  became  a 
nobleman,  literally  a  little  king,  he  had  a  numerous  house- 
hold; for  we  read,  John  vi.  53:  the  father  believed  with  all 
his  household."  Now  here  notice  the  necessity  of  preserving 
the  distinction  between  house,  the  word  used  by  our  trans- 
lators in  the  sense  of family,  and  house-HOLB ;  for  the  story 
seems  to  say  that  this  nobleman  had  only  one  son;  but  he 
had  many  domestics:  the  household  was  numerous,  but  all 
his  household  was  believers. 

Paul  uses  the  term,  Acts  xvi.  28,  speaking  to  the  terrified 
jailer — "Do  thyself  no  harm;  for  we  are  all  here" — many 
prisoners,  besides  Paul  and  Silas. 

The  consequence  is  inevitable,  that  families  distinguished 
by  the  word  all  or  whole,  had  many  children,  since  children 
are  the  family.  Acts  xviii.  8:  Crispus,  the  ruler  of  the  syna- 
gogue, believed  with  all  his  numerous  family.  Cornelius 
the  Centurion  feared  God  with  all  his  numerous  family,  Acts 

x.  1.  This  particular  was  so  striking,  that  it  is  repeated; 
for  Peter  reports  the  angel  to  have  said  to  Cornelius,  Acts 

xi.  14,  that  not  only  himself,  but  "all  his  family  should  be 
saved,"  by  the  word  to  be  spoken  to  them.  This  is  not 
noticed  in  the  first  account  of  the  appearance  of  the  angel ; 
but  it  was  a  striking  fact;  and  the  apostle  knew  it  to  be  true 
from  his  own  observation.  This  is  included  also  when  Cor- 
nelius says- -"we  are  all  here  present  before  God" — my 


236  CLASSICAL  AND  SCRIPTURAL  USE 


family  is  numerous.  This  idea  even  runs  through  the  story 
— "moreover  the  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  all  them  who  heard  the 
word" — on  the  numerous  assembly. 

As  Cornelius  selected  for  his  piety  the  soldier  whom  he 
sent  to  Joppa,  who  was  "a  devout  man,"  there  can  be  no 
doubt,  that  he  also  heard  the  discourse  of  Peter  to  the  family, 
and  most  probably,  those  two  domestics  who  accompanied 
him  in  bringing  Peter,  were  also  at  this  meeting.  Now  as 
the  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  all  who  heard  Peter  speak,  these 
members  of  the  house-7wld  of  Cornelius  were  among  the  first 
fruits  of  the  Gentiles;  but  they  were  not  of  his  family, 
though  consecrated  and  baptized  at  the  same  time  with  their 
master 

The  assembly  baptized  at  Cornelius's,  was  a  kind  of 
epitome — representatives  of  the  future  Gentile  church;  and 
therefore  contained  individuals  of  every  description,  young 
and  old — rich  and  poor — masters  and  servants — high  and 
low — foreigners,  natives  of  countries  near,  and  distant  coun- 
tries. Julian  the  Apostate,  who  acknowledged  only  two 
eminent  converts  to  Christianity,  named  Cornelius  the  Cen- 
turion as  one  of  them. 

Now  is  it  probable  that  Crispus  should  have  a  numerous 
family,  that  Cornelius  should  have  a  very  numerous  family, 
but  no  young  children  in  one  of  them?  although  the  word 
expressly  signifies  young  children !  The  families  are  spoken 
of  as  being  baptized:  no  exceptions  are  marked;  and  the 
most  numerous  of  all  was  baptized  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  well 
as  afterwards  with  water. 

This  leads  to  the  history  of  the  Philippian  jailer  who  re- 
joiced believing  in  God,  with  all  his  numerous  family,  Acts 
xvi.  34.  He  could  not  have  been  an  old  man.  His  first  in- 
tention after  the  earthquake — "he  drew  his  sword,  and  would 
have  killed  himself" — is  not  the  character  of  age,  which  is 
more  deliberate  in  its  determinations.  The  action  is  that  of 
a  fervid  mind.  In  like  manner,  "he  called  for  lights,  and 
sprang  in."  The  original  •  well  expresses  the  strenuous 
action  of  a  man  in  the  vigor  of  life ;  yet  this  man  had  a 
numerous  family,  which,  according  to  nature  must  have  con- 
tained young  children.    Cornelius  was  a  soldier  too,  and 


OF  BAPTISMAL  TERMS. 


237 


taking  human  life  as  generally  modified  by  professions,  had 
young  children  in  his  very  numerous  family. 

Luke  was  a  good  Greek  writer,  and  relates  the  history  of 
the  jailer  with  his  customary  precision.  He  says  Paul  ad- 
vised him:  "Believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  thou 
shalt  be  safe,  with  thy  family.  And  they  spake  unto  him 
the  word  of  the  Lord,  and  to  all  that  were  in  his  fomse-HOLD, 
to  all  in  the  jail."  He  brought  all  in  his  power  under  the 
word  as  Cornelius  had  done ;  but  it  is  not  said,  that  all  who 
were  in  his  Jwuse-B.OLT),  attendants,  prisoners,  etc.,  were  bap- 
tized, which  is  said  of  the  whole  company  at  Cornelius's, 
but  "he  and  his  family  were  baptized:"  "he  rejoiced  with 
all  Ills  numerous  family,  believing  in  God."  All  heard  tho 
word;  but  only  his  family  accompanied  the  jailer  in  baptism. 
This  jailer  became  one  of  the  Philippian  brethren;  and 
would  not  lose  the  opportunity  of  attending  the  consolatory 
exhortation  at  Lydia's,  and  of  bidding  his  spiritual  fathers 
farewell. 

The  baptism  of  this  family  is  spoken  of  as  that  of  Lydia, 
as  the  ordinary  course  of  events:  the  children  accompanying 
the  father,  as  is  perfectly  natural;  but  his  family  was  more 
numerous  than  that  of  Lydia,  as  appears  from  the  use  of  the 
word  all  which  is  not  applied  to  her  family. 

"I  will  take  you,"  says  the  prophet,  Jer.  iii.  14,  "one  of  a 
city,  or  two  of  a  tribe,  and  bring  you  to  Zion."  Considering 
the  isolated  nature  of  the  first  conversions,  it  is  wonderful 
that  we  have  so  many  instances  of  the  baptism  of  families; 
but  if  we  could  trace  the  establishment  of  a  church  within  a 
limited  neighbourhood,  we  might  expect  to  find  more  con- 
nected instances  of  this  practice. 

The  church  at  Philippi,  though  apparently  consisting  of 
a  few  members  only,  especially  when  first  planted  by  the 
Apostle  Paul,  affords  two  families,  that  of  Lydia,  and  that 
of  the  jailer,  which  were  certainly  baptized. 

The  church  at  Corinth  also  offers  two  families  baptized, 
that  of  Crispus  and  that  of  Stephanus;  besides  an  uncertain 
number  of  others. 

Stephanus  was  "the  first  fruits  of  Achaia,"  1  Cor.  xvi.  15 1 
and  Paul  confesses  that  he  baptized  his  family.  Crispus,  tha 
chief  of  the  synagogue,  believed  on  the  Lord,  with  all  hia 


238  CLASSICAL  AND  SCRIPTURAL  USE 


numerous  family , Acts  xviii.  8 ;  and  many  of  the  Corinthians 
believed  and  were  baptized. 

The  family  of  Crispus  is  said  to  believe,  but  it  is  not 
marked  as  baptized.  Their  baptism  will  readily  be 
granted ;  for  to  leave  this  believing  family  unbaptized 
would  cut  up  "  believers'  baptism"  by  the  very  roots.  Th(< 
same  reasons  imply  that  among  the  "many  Corinthians>; 
baptized,  others  beside  Crispus  had  families. 

Stephanas,  who  was  a  deputy  from  the  church  of  Corinth 
to  Paul,  had  been  baptized  and  was  a  member  of  that  church. 
Neither  of  these  particulars  is  recorded;  but  if  Stephanas 
were  not  of  their  body,  how  came  they  to  depute  him,  for 
the  purpose  of  obtaining  answers  to  questions  in  which  their 
body  was  concerned  ?  and  if  his  family  were  not  attached  to 
the  church  at  Corinth,  what  relation  could  it  have  to  the 
state  of  parties  in  that  church  ?  or  why  recollect  it  in  con- 
junction with  Gaius  and  Crispus?  Stephanas,  their  father, 
is  described  as  the  first  fruits  of  Achaia:  are  we  obliged  to 
take  this  term  in  the  sense  of  -  "first  convert?"  This  worthy 
man  might  have  resided  at  a  short  distance  from  Corinth, 
and  yet  be  a  member  of  the  Corinthian  church. 

The  church  of  Corinth,  then,  presents  two  particulars 
which  have  not  heretofore  occurred  in  the  history  of  bap- 
tism : — that  Crispus,  the  head  of  his  family,  was  baptized  by 
Paul,  separately  from  his  family,  which  was  not  baptized  by 
Paul;  and  that  the  family  of  Stephanas  was  baptized  by 
Paul,  separately  from  its  head  or  father,  who  was  not  bap- 
tized by  Paul :  directly  contrary  to  what  we  have  remarked 
of  Crispus. 

But  if  we  admit  that  the  family  of  Crispus  was  baptized, 
because  we  find  it  registered  as  believing,  then  we  must 
admit  the  same  of  all  other  families  which  we  find  marked 
as  Christians,  though  they  be  not  expressly  described  as 
baptized.  That  of  Onesiphorus,  1  Tim.  i.  16,  18,  and  iv.  19, 
which  the  apostle  distinguishes  by  most  hearty  good-will  for 
their  father's  sake,  not  for  their  own,  and  to  which  he  sends 
a  particular  salutation.  Also,  that  of  Aristobulus,  and  that  of 
Narcissus,  Horn.  xvi.  10,  11,  which  are  described  as  being 
"in  Christ."  We  have  this  evidence  on  this  subject— /cwr 
Christian  families  recorded  as  baptized — that  of  Cornelius 


OP  BAPTISMAL  TERMS.  239 


of  Lydia,  of  the  jailer,  and  of  Stephanas.  Two  Christian 
families  not  noticed  as  baptized — that  of  Crispus,  and  of 
Onesiphorus.  Two  Christian  families  mentioned  neither  aa 
families  nor  baptized — that  of  Aristobulus,  and  of  Narcissus. 
Eight  Christian  families,  and  therefore  baptized !  although 
as  there  was  no  such  thing  previously  as  a  Christian  family, 
there  could  be  no  children  of  converts  to  receive  the  ordi- 
nance ! 

Have  we  eight  instances  of  the  administration  of  the 
Lord's  supper?  Not  half  the  number.  Have  we  eight 
cases  of  the  change  of  the  Christian  Sabbath  from  the 
Jewish  ?  Not,  perhaps,  one-fourth  the  number.  Yet  those 
services  are  vindicated  by  the  practice  of  the  apostles  as 
recorded  in  the  New  Testament.  How  then  can  we  deny 
their  practice  on  the  subject  of  Infant  Baptism,  when  it  is 
established  by  a  series  of  more  numerous  instances  than  can 
possibly  be  found  in  support  of  any  doctrine,  principle,  or 
practice  derived  from  the  example  of  the  apostles  ?  Is  there 
any  other  case  besides  that  of  Baptism,  on  which  we  would 
take  families  at  hazard  and  deny  the  existence  of  young 
children  in  them. 

Take  eight  families  at  a  venture  in  the  street,  or  eight 
pews  containing  families  in  a  place  of  worship,  they  will 
afford  more  than  one  young  child.  Take  eight  families  on 
an  average:  suppose  half  to  consist  of  four  children  and  half 
of  eight  children :  the  average  is  six :  calculate  the  chances, 
that  in  forty-eight  children,  not  one  should  be  an  infant :  it 
is  hundreds  of  thousands  to  one.  But  there  is  no  occasion 
that  absolute  infancy  should  be  the  object:  suppose  children 
of  two  or  three  years  old,  the  chances  would  be  millions  to 
one,  that  none  such  were  found  among  forty-eight  children, 
composing  six  families. 

Or,  supposing  Baptism  were  completely  out  of  sight — 
"How  many  young  children  would  be  found  on  the  average, 
in  eight  families,  each  containing  six  children  ?"  What 
proportion  do  these  eight  families,  identified  and  named  in 
the  New  Testament,  bear  to  that  of  Christians  also  identified 
and  named?  The  number  of  names  of  persons  converted 
after  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
Is  twenty-eight.   Four  baptized  families  give  the  proportion 


240 


USE  OF  BAPTISMAL  TERMS. 


of  one  in  seven;  The  number  of  names  of  similar  converts 
in  the  whole  of  the  New  Testament  is  fifty-five.  How  many 
converts  may  be  fairly  inferred  from  the  History  of  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles  ?  ten  thousand  ? — this  gives  one  thousand  bap- 
tized families.  How  many  from  the  whole  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament? one  hundred  thousand? — this  gives  ten  thousand 
baptized  families.  How  many  must  be  allowed  during  the 
first  century  and  down  to  the  days  of  Origen  ?  one  million? — 
it  gives  one  hundred  thousand  baptized  families:  ten  mil- 
lions?— the  proportion  is  one  million  of  baptized  families. 

This  calculation,  or  one  to  the  same  effect,  can  neither  be 
evaded  nor  confuted ;  for  if  this  proportion  be  reduced  one- 
half,  still  Origen,  whose  great-grandfather,  grandfather,  and 
father  were  Christians,  and  who  himself  travelled  into  the 
countries,  and  among  the  churches,  where  Christianity  was 
first  established,  who  was  the  most  inquisitive  and  learned 
man  of  his  time,  could  not  be  ignorant  whether  the  churches 
received  infant  baptism  from  the  apostles  or  not  ?  Could  he 
have  any  inducement  to  deceive  or  to  be  deceived  on  this 
most  notorious  matter,  this  every-day  public  occurrence  ? 


Font  in  the  Baptistery  of  Constantine  at  Rome. 


PRIMITIVE  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 


241 


ILLUSTRATIONS  OF  THE  PRIMITIVE  MODE 
OF  BAPTISM. 


Great  explorations  have  recently  been  made  in  the  Ceme- 
teries of  the  martyr-church  at  Rome  ;  but  the  results  of  those 
researches  have  not  yet  been  spread  before  the  public.  We 
are  told  they  are  of  the  most  thrilling  interest.  The  dis- 
coveries previously  made  have  prepared  us  to  expect  some- 
thing more  than  a  mere  gratification  of  our  curiosity.  Refe- 
rence is  made  on  page  118  of  the  foregoing  Treatise,  to  the 
Baptistery  in  the  Catacomb  of  Pontianus,  outside  of  the  Por- 
tese  gate  at  Rome.  We  copy  an  engraving  of  this  venerable 
memento  of  the  heroic  age  of  Christianity. 


The  precise  year  in  which  this  Baptistery  was  constructed 
cannot  be  determined.  It  must  have  been,  however,  shortly 
after  the  martyrdom  of  the  apostles.    It  appears  that  it  was 


242 


ILLUSTRATIONS  OF  THE 


made  before  the  Cemetery  was  ex- 
cavated, as  the  former  was  but  six 
feet  square,  while  the  latter  was  cut 
out  of  the  rock  above  and  around, 
and  gradually  enlarged,  as  the  axe 
of  the  persecutor  furnished  the 
tenants  for  the  narrow  cells. 

The  size  of  the  Baptistery  obvi- 
ously precludes  the  idea  of  plung- 
ing in  administering  the  sacred 
rite.  Independently  of  this  con- 
sideration, however,  that  point  is 
determined  by  a  picture  rudely 
painted  on  the  walls  of  the  Bap- 
tistery, representing  the  baptism 
of  Christ.  The  Baptist  stands  on 
a  rock,  pouring  water  on  the  head 
of  the  Saviour,  who  is  standing  in 
the  river — the  Holy  Dove  descend- 
ing on  him,  the  emblematic  Lamb 
standing  meekly  by,  and  an  angel 
witnessing  the  solemn  scene.  Be- 
ckrist  baptized  by  John  Baptist.  neath  is  the  Cross,  studded  with 
gems,  having  suspended,  on  its  transverse  beam,  the  sym- 
bolical letters  A  and  Q. — the  Alpha  and  Omega. 

Similar  representations  of  the  primitive  mode  of  baptism 
are  found  in  other  places.    The  following  is  taken  from  the 


HBAHT 


1CHC 


PRIMITIVE  MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  243 


church  on  the  Via  Ostiensis,  at  Rome.  "  The  outside,"  saya 
Mr.  Taylor,  "  is  a  plate  of  brass  covering  a  substance  of  wood. 
The  figures  are  partly  in  relief,  partly  engraved.  Some  of  the 
hollows' are  inlaid  with  silver.  The  inscriptions  are  in  Greek, 
with  the  motto  BAnTICHC.  The  door  which  it  covers  is 
dated  1070  ;  but  the  plate  is  much  older  than  the  door ;  and 
from  the  letters,  it  is  manifestly  of  Greek  origin  and  very 
ancient  workmanship/' 

A  similar  picture  constitutes  the  centre-piece  of  the  dome 
of  the  Baptistery  at  Ravenna,  which  was  erected  in  454.  The 
Baptist  is  pouring  water  out  of  a  shell,  or  something  like  it, 
on  the  Saviour's  head,  which  is  surmounted  with  a  glory — the 
Holy  Dove  is  seen  descending  upon  him.  The  river  is  per- 
sonified by  the  figure  over  which  is  the  word  IORDANN. 
We  give  a  copy  of  this  representation. 


244 


PRIMITIVE  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 


One  ot  the  ancient  fonts,  alluded  to  on  page  114,  is  repre* 
sented  in  the  following  plate.  A  candidate  is  seen  kneeling 
by  it.  offering  his  petitions  to  Heaven,  and  a  hand  points  from 
the  clouds  above  him,  in  token  of  the  divine  approval.  Other 
candidates  are  kneeling  on  the  ground  receiving  baptism, 
the  water  being  poured  upon  them  out  of  a  vase. 


GENERAL  INDEX. 


Ablution  of  children,  44. 
Abyssinia,  baptism  in,  83. 
Adult  subjects  not  all  believers, 
215. 

AyW,  30. 

Agrippinus  was  rebaptized,  53. 
Alford  on  Christ's  baptism,  104, 
105. 

Ambrose  testified  to  infant  bap- 
tism, 38:  on  virtue  of  bap- 
tism, 125. 

Anabaptists,  origin,  55,  202 : 
English  Calvinists,  56 :  Ger- 
man, etc.,  heretics,  189. 

Ananias  probably  an  elder,  72. 

Andrews,  Bp.,  on  baptismal  re- 
generation, 132. 

Av&p&Troc,  49. 

Anti-missionary  Baptists,  191. 

Apocrypha,  use  of  baptizo  in,  94. 

Apostles  baptized  children,  33. 

Apostolical  Constitutions  on 
oil,  etc.,  in  baptism,  116. 

Aquinas  on  baptism  for  the 
dead,  225. 

Aristotle  quoted,  94. 

Athanasius  baptized  boys  when 
a  boy,  in  sport,  76. 

Augustin  on  baptism  of  in- 
fants, 38,  135 :  on  lay-bap- 
tism, 69:  on  John's  baptism, 
102 :  taught  damnation  of 
unbaptized  infants  and  bap- 
tismal regeneration, 125, 126 : 
on  John  iii.  5,  149  :  his  pious 
use  of  baptism,  157  :  on  bap- 
tism of  children  of  unbeliev- 
ers, 167 :  called  baptism  the 


door  of  the  church,  168 :  on 

delay  of  baptism,  201. 
Augsburgh  Confession  on  virtue 

of  baptism,  128. 
Augsburgh,  Diet  of,  on  virtue 

of  baptism,  128. 
Bacon,  Lord,  on  lay-baptism, 

65. 

Baptismal  regeneration,  how 
originated,  124 :  various 
views  of,  125. 

Baptismal  robes,  pants,  etc. ,109. 

Baptisma  sanguinis,  224. 

Baptism  for  the  dead,  224. 

Baptisterium,  91,  114. 

Barnes  on  1  Cor.  vii.  14,  28. 

Basil  puts  baptism  for  circum- 
cision, 26 :  baptized  in  in- 
fancy, 38  :  on  baptismal  re- 
generation, 125. 

Believers'  baptism,  21,  215. 

Bellarmine  on  baptism  for  the 
dead,  225. 

Beza's  rendering  of  Mark  vii.  3, 
228. 

Bible  translation,  216,  229. 
Bigotry  of  some  antipedobap- 

tists,  214. 
Bingham  on  virtue  of  baptism, 

140. 

Blaurock,  anabaptist,  55. 

Bloomfield  on  1  Cor.  xv.  29, 
226:  on  Mark  vii.  3-8,  228. 

Blunt  immersed  by  Dutch  ana- 
baptists, 56. 

Bohemians  rebaptized,  59. 

Booth,  his  electrical  bath,  89. 

Bossuet  on  Albigenses  and 
245 


246 


GENERAL  INDEX. 


Vaudois,  40,  44 :  on  Bohe- 
mian rebaptizers,  60. 
Bpjpw,  27,  34. 

Bridges  on  women's  baptism, 
65. 

Buccold,  anabaptist,  203. 

Bunyan  favored  open  commu- 
nion, 57:  denied  that  baptism 
is  a  church  ordinance,  159. 

Burnet  teaches  baptismal  re- 
generation, 139. 

Burying  in  baptism,  109. 

Cajetan  on  baptism  for  the 
dead,  226. 

Calvin  teaches  baptismal  re- 
generation, 128,  153 :  refers 
1  Cor.  xv.  29  to  clinical  bap- 
tism, 226. 

Calvinists  in  this  country  repu- 
diate baptismal  regeneration, 
128. 

Campbell,  Dr.,  on  Mark  vii.  3-8, 
228. 

Campbellites  on  administrator 
of  baptism,  63  :  their  hetero- 
doxy, 180,  190. 

Carson  on  bapto  and  baptizo, 
221,  223. 

Carthage,  Council  of,  on  bap- 
tism of  new-born  infants,  37  : 
on  exorcism,  115. 

Cartwright  on  administrator  of 
baptism,  54 :  on  John  iii.  5, 
149. 

Castalio's  rendering  of,  7ruy/un, 
227, 

Catacombs,  inscriptions  and 
pictures  in,  118,  198. 

Catechism  of  Church  of  Eng- 
land on  baptismal  regenera- 
tion, 130. 

Cathari  charged  with  heresy,  41. 

Cecilian,  53. 

Celestius  on  infant  baptism,  38. 

Children  bound  by  their  pa- 
rents, 157:  benefits  of  their 
baptism,  168,  199,  211. 


Christians,  so-called,  Arians, 
191. 

Christ's  baptism,  105,  114. 

Chrysostom  puts  baptism  for 
circumcision,  26 :  on  infant 
baptism,  38  :  on  John's  bap- 
tism, 102:  on  Christ's  bap- 
tism, 105:  on  baptism  for 
the  dead,  226. 

Church,  essentially  one  in  all 
ages,  24  :  difference  between 
catholic  and  particular,  160. 

Church-membership,  election 
and  birth-right  basis  of,  162, 
184:  of  children,  168. 

Circumcision  before  Moses,  23, 
179  :  superseded  by  baptism, 
23. 

Clinical  baptism,  59,  80,  226. 

Communion,  open,  56. 

Compulsory  baptism  inadmis- 
sible, 167. 

Comus,  Milton's,  94. 

Constantine's  baptistery  and 
baptism,  114,  200. 

Cooper,  Bp. ,  on  lay-baptism,  66. 

Cornelius,  baptism  of,  87,  149. 

Covenant,  baptismal,  13:  Abra- 
hamic,  identical  with  Chris- 
tian, 23,  154,  178. 

Cranmer  teaches  baptismal  re- 
generation, 129. 

Crispus,  baptism  of,  238. 

Cyprian,  on  baptizing  children 
at  birth,  26,  38  :  recognized 
affusion,  117. 

Dagg,  Dr.,  on  1  Cor.  vii.  14,  28. 

Delay  of  baptism,  why  encour- 
aged by  some,  201. 

AlitCpO^OlQ  RATTTlTfAGlS,  79. 

Dionysius,  case  reported  by 

him,  75. 
Doddridge  and  others  on  1  Cor. 

xv.  29,  226. 
Donatus,  54. 

Donne  on  John's  baptism,  104 1 
on  virtue  of  baptism,  133 


GENERAL  INDEX. 


247 


— 

Dwight  on  hereditary  basis  of 
church-membership,  167:  on 
duty  of  church  to  baptize 
children,  169. 

Dye,  a  meaning  of  bapto,  93. 

Election  basis  of  church-mem- 
bership inconsistent  with  the 
birth-right  basis,  162. 

Eliberis,  Council  of,  authorized 
laymen  to  baptize,  59. 

England,  Bp.,  on  virtue  of  bap- 
tism, 127. 

England,  Church  of,  teaches 
baptismal  regeneration,  126. 

Enon,  107. 

Ephesus,  case  of  disciples  at, 
102. 

Epiphanius  on  Christ's  baptism, 
104 :  refers  1  Cor.  xv.  29  to 
clinical  baptism,  226. 

Estius  on  1  Cor.  xv.  29,  226. 

Eunuch  not  immersed,  100. 

Eusebius  baptized  Constantine 
by  pouring,  114. 

Exorcism,  115. 

Exorcists  baptized,  59. 

Faber  on  Albigenses  and  Val- 
lenses,  40,  48. 

Faithful,  applied  to  church- 
members,  including  infants, 
198. 

Family  baptisms,  32,  49,  231. 
Fathers,  why  cited  for  infant 

baptism,  39:  on  the  mode, 

113. 

Fidus  baptized  children  on  the 
eighth  day,  26,  37. 

Flanders,  anabaptists  of,  Patri- 
passians,  189. 

Florence,  Council  of,  on  bap- 
tismal regeneration,  126. 

Gale  on  bapto,  221. 

Gerson  on  virtue  of  baptism, 
127,  138. 

Gill,  Dr.,  on  1  Cor.  vii.  14-28,  de- 
nies that  baptism  is  a  church 
ordinance,  160. 


Goode,  Gorham,  &c.  on  bap- 
tismal regeneration,  141. 

Good  men,  Albigenses,  42. 

Goodwin,  J.,  on  evils  of  anti- 
pedobaptism,  50. 

Gregory  Dr.,  on  anabaptists, 
202. 

Gregory,  Nazianzen,  on  infant 
baptism,  37:  on  delay  of 
baptism,  201. 

Gregory,  the  Great  on  trine  im- 
mersion, 115. 

Hall,  K,  on  Acts  xix.  1-7, 103 

Helvetic  confession  on  bap- 
tismal regeneration,  128. 

Henricians  believed  in  infant 
baptism,  42. 

Hereditary  church-member- 
ship, 22,  184. 

Heretics,  baptism  of,  53 :  in 
primitive  church,  187:  among 
antipedobaptists,  188. 

Hildreth  on  R.  Williams,  139. 

Holiness,  baptismal,  28,  49. 

Hooker  on  lay-baptism,  66 :  on 
virtue  of  baptism,  149. 

Horsley  on  virtue  of  baptism, 
140. 

House  and  household,  231. 
Hoveden  on  creed  of  Albigen- 
ses, 42. 

Immersional  crucifixion,  113. 

Immersionists,  bold  and  bigot- 
ed assumptions  of,  119. 

Immersion  more  rigorous  than 
circumcision,  78 :  figurative, 
81 :  origin  of,  114:  not  safer 
than  affusion,  119. 

Infants,  damnation  of  unbap- 
tized,  opposed,  41,  124,  129, 
149,  165. 

Initiating  ordinance,  baptism 
an,  159. 

Innocent  I.  authorized  laity  tc 
baptize,  59. 

Irenseus  on  infant  baptism,  34, 
198. 


248 


GENERAL  INDEX. 


Jailer,  family  of,  baptized,  33, 
235:  baptized  by  affusion, 87. 

James,  King,  objected  to  wo- 
men's baptizing,  65. 

Jerome  on  infant  baptism,  38  : 
on  affusion,  87. 

Jesse,  first  anabaptist  pastor  in 
England,  56  :  defended  open 
communion,  57. 

Jew,  baptism  of  a,  161. 

Jewish  baptisms,  79,  82,  84. 

John's  baptism,  affusion,  81 : 
not  Christian,  102  :  localities 
of,  106. 

Jordan,  106.  See  John' 's  baptism. 

Judaism  falsely  charged  on  in- 
fant baptism,  177. 

Judith's  washing,  94. 

Justin  Martyr  puts  baptism 
for  circumcision,  26  :  on  in- 
fant discipleship,  34 :  on 
John's  baptism  102:  on  the 
mode,  117. 

Kedron,  no  baptistery,  86. 

Kingdom  of  God,  24. 

KX/vuJk.  85. 

Knipperdoling,  anabaptist,  204. 

Kuinoel  on  Christ's  baptism, 105. 

Kvptos,  96. 

Lay-baptism,  53. 

Le  Clerc  on  baptism  for  the 
dead,  226. 

Limbus  infantum,  124. 

Longobardi,  king  and  queen 
baptized  by  pouring,  114. 

Lord's  supper,  not  enjoined  ex- 
plicitly on  women,  48  :  not  a 
full  meal,  97. 

Aourpcv,  91,  151. 

Lutherans,  Evangelical,  repu- 
diate baptismal  regenera- 
tion, 128. 

Luther,  error  of,  on  ministry, 
61 :  taught  baptismal  re- 
generation, 128 :  opposed 
anabaptists,  208 :  on  1  Cor. 
xv.  29,  225. 


Lydia  and  family  baptized,  32, 

234:  by  affusion,  87. 
Macknight,  29,  226. 
Maclay,  Dr. ,  invective  of,  on  in  • 

fant  baptism,  175. 
Majorinus  rebaptized,  53. 
Maldonat  on  baptism  for  the 

dead,  226. 
Manicheans,    Albigenses  so 

called  by  enemies,  40,  41. 

MaSnTiuo-ctTi,  33,  34. 

Marcionites'  baptism  for  the 
dead,  225. 

Matthias,  anabaptist,  203. 

Melancthon  on  virtue  of  bap- 
tism, 128. 

Methodists  falsely  charged  with 
Romanizing  tendencies  and 
holding  baptismal  regenera- 
tion, 181 :  practice  in  regard 
to  subjects  of  baptism,  212. 

Midwives  licensed  to  baptize, 
59,  64. 

Miller,  Dr.,  on  hereditary 
church-membership,  162. 

Ministers  proper  administrators 
of  baptism,  71  :  usually  bap- 
tize their  own  converts,  72. 

Mormons,  anabaptists,  180, 
192,  210. 

Munster,  anabaptists  at,  194. 

Munzer,  a  pastor  before  he  was 
anabaptist,  55 :  tried  to 
unite  church  and  state,  202. 

Naked  subjects  of  baptism, 
83. 

Nebuchadnezzar  not  immersed 
in  dew,  93. 

Neophytes,  newly-baptized,  em- 
bracing infants,  198. 

fat^wrkf,  84,  228. 

Novatian  rebaptized  heretics, 
53  :  was  baptized  in  bed,  59. 

Oath  of  midwives,  64. 

Qmin,  cikoc,  32,  231. 

Olive-tree,  emblem  of  church, 
25,  48. 


GENERAL  INDEX. 


249 


Opus  operantis — operatum,  143, 
147. 

Origen  on  infant  baptism,  36, 
198  :  on  John's  baptism,  81  : 
on  baptismal  regeneration : 
125:  ancestors  of,  240. 

Original  sin  set  forth  in  infant 
baptism,  184. 

Owen's,  Dr.,  election  basis  of 
church-membership,  163. 

Oxford  teaching  on  baptismal 
regeneration,  141. 

nWw,  27. 

Papists  recognize  baptism  of 
heretics,  60. 

Parseus  held  damnation  of 
non-elect  infants,  165. 

Parents  may  contract  for  their 
children,  47. 

Parkhurst  on  7rvyjuy,  228. 

Paul,  reasons  of,  for  not  bap- 
tizing, 72  :  baptism  of,  86  : 
consistent  in  regard  to  cir- 
cumcision, 121.  % 

Paulus  on  Christ's  baptism, 
105. 

Pearson  teaches  baptismal  re- 
generation, 139. 

Pelagians  confronted  by  infant 
baptism,  184. 

Pelagius  held  infant  baptism, 
38. 

Pentecostal  baptisms,  affusion, 
85. 

Perkins  held  the  damnation  of 
non-elect  infants,  165. 

Peter  Bruis,  40. 

Peter  Martyr  on  damnation 
of  non-elect  infants,  165. 

Peter  of  Clugny  slandered 
Albigenses,  40. 

Pledges,  baptismal,  155. 

Plunging,  no  scriptural  mean- 
ing of  bapto,  93. 

riveuyust,  97. 

Polish  Socinian  anabaptists, 
189. 

11* 


Popish  baptism,  question  on 
validity  of,  54,  64. 

Popliniere  on  creed  of  Albigen- 
ses, 42. 

Presbyterians  on  lay-baptism, 
54. 

Prior  Philip's  note  on  sponsors, 
35. 

Proselyte  baptism,  33. 
Purgatory  found  in  1  Cor.  xv. 

29,  by  Bellarmine,  225. 
Purifications,  Jewish,  80,  84, 

227. 

Puritans  on  administrator  of 
baptism,  54. 

Pusey  on  baptismal  regenera- 
tion, 147. 

Quakers  reject  baptism,  19. 

Rebaptization  improper,  53, 
71. 

Reformers  not  rebaptized,  59. 

Regeneration,  why  baptism  so 
called,' 151. 

Reinerius  slandered  the  Ca- 
thari,  41. 

Rigaltius,  53,  59. 

Romans  consecrated  their  chil- 
dren to  their  deities,  166. 

Rothman,  a  pastor  before  ana- 
baptist, 204. 

Ruffinus,  36. 

Sacrament  denned  by  Church 
of  England,  131. 

Saints,  church-members,  in- 
cluding infants,  30,  198. 

Salt's  account  of  Abyssinian 
baptism,  83. 

Sanctification,  how  promoted 
by  baptism,  158. 

Se-Baptists,  55. 

Servetus,  an  antipedobapnst, 
189. 

Seventh-day  Baptists,  191. 
Seventy  disciples,  the,  86. 
Shedding  forth  of  the  Spirit, 

baptism,  90. 
Sign,  or  symbol,  baptism,  154 


250 


GENERAL  INDEX. 


Simon  Magus  baptized,  not  re- 
generated, 149. 

Sin,  washed  away  in  bap- 
tism, according  to  some, 
124,  207. 

Slave  children  offered  to  bap- 
tism by  masters,  167. 

Smith,  se-baptist,  55. 

Socinus  denied  baptismal  re- 
generation, 139. 

Sprinkling,  79,  98, 

Stephanas,  family  of  baptized, 
32,  232. 

Sunday-schools  for  the  children 
of  the  church,  169. 

Sumner,  Abp.,  on  virtue  of 
baptism,  143. 

Taylor,  C,  on  baptism  for  the 
dead,  225 :  on  oikqs  and  outlet, 
231. 

Taylor,  Jer.,  on  case  of  Ana- 
nias, 73 :  on  argument  ex 
concesso,  121  :  on  damnation 
of  unbaptized  infants,  128 : 
on  virtue  of  baptism,  134: 
on  initiatory  character  of 
baptism,  161. 

Tertullian  on  1  Cor.  vii.  14,  29, 
31,  166  :  on  delay  of  baptism, 
35,  202 :  on  sponsors,  35 : 
on  administrator,  53,  61,  63  : 
on  plunging,  etc.,  115  :  re- 
cognized affusion,  118:  on 
baptism  in  Church  of  Rome, 
119:  on  baptismal  regenera- 
tion, 125  :  on  baptism  for  the 
dead,  225. 

Theodoret  on  baptism  for  the 
dead,  225. 

Toulman  on  strict  communion, 
56, 


Trent,  Council  of,  on  virtue  of 

baptism,  126. 
Tunkers,  190. 
Two-seed  Baptists,  192. 
Union   of  church   and  state 

falsely   charged   on  infant 

baptism,  200. 
Universalist  antipedobaptists, 

190. 

Urban  II.  authorized  women  to 

baptize,  59. 
Vicarious  baptisms,  225. 
Vulgate  reading  1  Cor.  vii.  14, 

29. 

Waldenses,  confessions  of,  on 

infant  baptism,  44. 
Wall  on  Albigenses,  40. 
Warburton  on  Quakerism,  19. 
Washing  before  baptism,  114. 
Water,how  sanctified  by  Christ, 

105. 

Wayland,  Dr.,  on  administra- 
tor of  baptism,  58. 

Wesley  on  baptismal  regenera- 
tion, 140,  141 :  on  baptism 
for  the  dead,  226. 

Westminster  assembly,  on  ad- 
ministrator of  baptism,  54  : 
on  hereditary  church- mem- 
bership, 161 :  taught  that 
baptism  unites  the  subjects 
thereof  to  the  church,  168. 

Wet,  a  meaning  of  bapto,  93. 

Whitgift  on  lay-baptism,  65. 

Williams,  Roger,  55,  189. 

Winchester,  antipedobaptist 
universalist,  190. 

Wolff's  account  of  oriental 
baptists,  82. 

Women's  baptizing,  59. 

Zipporah,  case  of,  70. 


INDEX  OF  SCRIPTURE  TEXTS. 


Genesis  xvii....23,  52,  162,  167 


Esodus  xv.  5,  19  81 

Numbers  xix  80,  95 

1  Kings  xviii.  33,  34  81 

2  Kings  iii,  11...  84 

v.  14    224 

2  Chron.  xxx.  18,  19  123 

Psalm  cxxxix.  15,  16  163 

tsaiah  xxi.  4  224 

xliv.  3  155 

liii.  12  112 

lxiii.  1-3  98 

Jeremiah  xi.  16  .25 

li.  13  107 

fiJzekiel  xvi.  4  116 

xxiii.  15  221 

xxxvi.  25  155 

Daniel  iv.  33  93,  221 

v.  21  93,  221 

Matthew  iii.  6  82 

11  88,  100 

13...,  104 

viii.  11,  12  24 

xxi.  43  24 


PAOI 

Matthew  xxviii.  16-20.. .15,  16, 
33,  71 

Mark  i.  4  139 

i.  9  100,  106 

vii.  3,  4,  8  84,  227 

x.  13-16  27 

xvi.  16  15,  40,  46 

xi.  37,  38  230 

Luke  xii.  50  105 

xviii.  15....  27 

Johni.  28  107 

ii.  6  84,  230 

iii.  3  155 

iii.  5.. .14,  26,  97, 149, 153 

25,  26  13,  84 

vii.  22,  23.. ..23,  154,  179 

Acts  i.  3-8  88,  91 

ii.  1-4  88 

16-18  89 

33  91 

38,  39. ..15,  22,  27,  52, 
139,  152 

vii.  45  24 

viii.  13-24  152 

36-39  ....15,  21,  100, 

153 

ix.  10-18  72,  86 

x.  38  105 

47,  48.. ..19,  22,  74,  87 

xi.  15,  16  89,  91 

xiii.  46  25 

xv.  8-10  78 

xvi.  1-3  121 

251 


252 


INDEX  OF  SCRIPTURE  TEXTS. 


PAGE 

Acts  xvi.  15  52,  87,  234 

33,  34  87,  236 

40  33,  100 

xix.  1-7  19,  102 

xxii.  16  15,  140,  153 

xxiii.  8,  9  97 

Romans  vi.  1-11  109,  157 

ix  163 

xi.  16-24  25 

xv.  7  123 

1  Cor.  i.  12-17  32,  52,  72 

vii.  14  28,  52,  166 

ix.  19-22  122 

x.  1,  2  52,  80 

xi.  28  49 

xv.  29  224 

xvi.  15  32 

Galatians  i.  11,  12  17 

ii.  3-5  121 

iii.  7-9  23 

17,  18  23, 154 

26-29..  .14,26,111 

v.  2-6  122 

vi.  12,  13...,  122 


PAQH 

Ephesians  iv.  5  71 

v.  25-27.. ..140, 150, 

153 

vi.  1  31 

Colossians  ii.  11,  12  26,  112 

iii.  20  31 

1  Tim.  iii.  4,  12  233 

iv.  14  233 

Titus  iii.  5,  6  14,  91,  150 

Hebrews  iii.  1-6  24 

viii.  10-12  156 

ix.  10-14  80,  95 

x.  22  153 

xi.  7  233 

xii.  24  112 

1  Peter  iii.  20  233 

iii.  21  15,  153 

1  John  v.  8  105 

Revelations  xvii.  1,  15  108 

xix.  11-15  98 


THE  END. 


STEREOTYPED  BY  L.  JOHNSON  AND  CO, 

PfllUSELPHU, 


This  book  is  due  at  the  LOUIS  R.  WILSON  LIBRARY  on  the 
last  date  stamped  under  "Date  Due."  If  not  on  hold  it  may  be 
renewed  h\  bringing  it  to  the  library. 

A 

DATE  RFT 
DUE  Ktl- 

JUL  0  A 

1998 

:P  20  9(g 

DEC  1 

1998 

t  n  s  1999 

MAY  0* 

